Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DONCASTER CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (COUNTY OF BERKS (CONSENT TO LETTING)) BILL

READING CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

General Electric Company, Coventry (Orders)

Miss Barton: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the concern felt in Coventry at the projected cuts in orders given by his Department to the General Electric Company, Coventry; and if he will make a statement about the future position of such orders apart from the one connected with telephone instruments.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): The level of orders with all our contractors is at present under review in the light of available capital resources and of stock holdings. Negotiations with the General Electric Company and other Post Office contractors are in progress, and I regret that I am not at present able to make a statement about the future.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that that sounds rather like another death knell to Coventry, which has already suffered a great deal in the matter of contracts in other directions? Is he aware, furthermore, that the G.E.C. in

Coventry is dependent on the General Post Office and on the export market for its orders? If the General Post Office cuts down its orders, the position will be very serious.

Mr. Thompson: Of course we try to avoid undue disruption in the flow of orders. We will bear in mind the remarks which the hon. Lady has made about this company.

Miss Burton: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the order for telephone instruments given by his Department to the General Electric Company, Coventry, last December for completion within twelve months has now had this completion period extended to 2½ years; and if he will give the reasons for this change.

Mr. K. Thompson: A recent review of the stock position made it clear that the projected level of purchases of telephone instruments would be in excess of Post Office needs to meet current demand and estimated future requirements. Much as I regret this, extension of the period of delivery from all our contractors has been unavoidable.

Miss Burton: While accepting the hon. Member's regrets, may I ask him whether he realises that whichever end of the stick it is, Coventry is obviously the loser? Is he aware that this firm employs many thousands of people, and that the fact that this order has been extended to 2½ years means that they will be redundant? Is he further aware —and he may not be—that workers at G.E.C. are unlikely to be easily absorbed into other industries in Coventry?

Mr. Thompson: We should regret any serious consequences, such as those to which the hon. Lady refers, flowing from any action on our part, but I am sure she will agree that it is wiser for us to spread these orders over a period rather than to indulge in staccato cancellations of orders.

Miss Burton: May I ask the Postmaster-General, through the hon. Member, whether, with other Ministers, he has noticed that the position in Coventry is serious? It concerns the motor car industry, the aircraft industry and now the Post Office. If the Govern-


ment mean to make this country worth living in for the workpeople, they must do something about it.

Sub-Offices, Bournemouth

Mr. J. Eden: asked the Postmaster-General (1) when the sub-post offices in the Kinson, Northbourne and Redhill areas of Bournemouth were first opened; and how many of these are placed in shops;
(2) what was the population served by the sub-post offices in the Kinson, North-bourne and Redhill areas of Bournemouth when they first opened; and what is the present-day figure.

Mr. K. Thompson: Sub-offices were opened in the parish of Kinson which includes the Northbourne and Redhill areas, in 1856, 1892, 1924, 1925, 1932, 1933 and 1951. There are now nine sub-offices in the parish, and all of them are in shops. I cannot say what the population of Kinson was at each of the dates in question, but I understand that in 1851 it was about 900 and that today it is about 34,000.

Mr. Eden: Bearing in mind the last part of my hon. Friend's Answer, will he not from that appreciate that the population has increased very considerably since these sub-post offices were first installed, and will he recognise that it is not so much the distance between sub-post offices that matters as the increase in population? Will he say whether there is any likelihood of new sub-post offices being provided to meet the needs of the increased population? If he considers that there is no likelihood, will he at least undertake to visit the area?

Mr. Thompson: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his offer of hospitality and, if convenient, I will take an opportunity of paying the visit. We are aware of the effect of this increase in population on the demands on the post offices in the area, but the present feeling is that the demands are pretty well met.

Letter Rates

Mr. Lipton: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will give an assurance that he will maintain the inland letter rate at 2½d. during the present financial year as a measure towards curtailing inflation.

Mr. K. Thompson: My right hon. Friend is not prepared to anticipate in any way the statement on Post Office finances forecast in his Answer to the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) last week.

Mr. Lipton: That sounds most ominous. Why does not the Assistant Postmaster-General frankly admit that it will not be long before his right hon. Friend imposes a 3d. post, thus making another hole in everybody's purse? Why does he not now come clean right away?

Mr. Thompson: My right hon. Friend has already said that when he has anything to say on Post Office charges he will come to the House and say it at the appropriate time.

Mail Deliveries, Aden

Mr. J. Harrison: asked the Post master-General, in view of the complaints received, if he will inquire into the long delay and, in some cases, the complete failure to deliver mails to Service personnel in Aden.

Mr. K. Thompson: I regret that while the Suez Canal was closed surface mails for Aden suffered delay. We now have weekly sailings with a sailing time of fourteen days. I am not aware of any instance of complete failure to deliver mail, but if the hon. Member will let me have details of any case I will gladly have inquiry made.

Mr. Harrison: Is the Minister aware that the complaint concerns the loss of some of these mails, which is really very significant? I will take him up on his request to send him some of the details.

Hansard (Deliveries)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that for the past twelve years the hon. Member for West Ham, North has had the daily HANSARD delivered to his home address by the first postal delivery each morning; that for the last few days these HANSARDS have not been delivered until later postal delivery times; what is the reason for this; and whether he will take the necessary action to ensure that the practice operated for twelve years prior to the last few days is still maintained.

Mr. K. Thompson: I am sorry that the hon. Member should have suffered


this inconvenience. His copy of HANSARD ought to be delivered by first post, and we are taking steps to see that delay does not occur in future.

Mr. Lewis: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that since putting down the Question the matter has been rectified? Can I assume from that that the Post Office will now carry out the excellent example set by the Minister's predecessor when the Labour Government were in power?

Mr. Thompson: We always have to be very careful in considering whether to follow the precedents of our predecessors.

Sir T. Moore: Would not my hon. Friend perhaps have welcomed a letter from the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on the subject rather than have him spend 30s. by putting down a Question?

Mr. Thompson: We are always interested to hear the hon. Member in this House.

Stores (Sales)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Postmaster-General (1) what was the book value of stores to be sold in the 1956–57 estimate; what was the amount received for those stores; and what methods were used for their disposal;
(2) what amount was realised from the sale of used, worn-out and obsolete stores in the last financial year; and what was the method of disposal.

Mr. K. Thompson: Cash receipts from sales of stores in 1956–57 are estimated at £4| million, including £3,850,000 for used, worn-out and obsolete stores. At the time of sale these stores were carried in the Post Office books at their expected sale value. It would not be possible without undue labour to ascertain what was their book value at any particular stage before they were offered for sale. Apart from new stores sold at cost to other Government Departments, disposal is almost invariably by competitive tender.

Mr. Allaun: What was the nature of the surplus engineering stores valued at £3½ million which were disposed of? Were the tenders advertised, and, if so, to whom?

Mr. Thompson: The stores referred to in the total of £3,850,000 are worn out, obsolete and out-of-date stores, as described in my Answer. The assemblies were advertised as publicly as possible in the areas in which they were to be offered and elsewhere, and the competitive tenders submitted were then considered before acceptance.

Telegrams (Time and Date Stamps)

Mr. Winterbottom: asked the Post master-General what proposals he has for omitting the time of receipt stamp on telegrams as part of the proposed changes in Post Office practice.

Mr. Hobson: asked the Postmaster-General what proposals he has for stopping the use of time and date stamps on telegrams.

Mr. K. Thompson: The time of receipt at the local office is usually written in on the delivered copy of telegrams, but this practice is not invariably followed and consideration is being given to discontinuing it. The time of handing in of a telegram is included in the preamble to the text and shows the recipient how long the telegram has taken to reach him. It is not proposed to alter this arrangement.

Training Centres, Stone and Eastbourne (Costs)

Mr. Hobson: asked the Postmaster-General the cost per student per week at Stone and Eastbourne training centres, respectively.

Mr. K. Thompson: Excluding travelling and cost of providing substitutes, the figures were £18 and £19. respectively, in 1955–56.

British Museum of Natural History (Services)

Mr. Hobson: asked the Postmaster-General why the value of services rendered by the Post Office, without payment, to the British Museum of Natural History has increased from £880 to£3,000.

Mr. K. Thompson: The correct estimate for 1957–58 is about £1,300. The figure of £3,000 was arrived at through misunderstanding of a change in practice at the Natural History Museum.

Mr. Hobson: In view of this statement, does not the hon. Member think that this mistake ought to have been found out before it was included in the Civil Estimates? What is wrong?

Mr. Thompson: It would have been corrected before the Civil Estimates were published had it been found out. Now that we have found it out, I am taking this opportunity of making the House aware of this error.

Mr. Hobson: But this figure is stated in the Estimates. There must be something wrong to cause this great variation.

Mr. Thompson: I thought that my original Answer made it clear that the £3,000 was arrived at through a misunderstanding of a change in practice at the Natural History Museum. Now we know about it, and I have informed the hon. Gentleman of the facts.

Postcards

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Postmaster-General, in view of the later delivery of postal communications bearing 2d. stamps, if he will consider reducing the postal charges for postcards containing brief greetings or acknowledgements and delivered by the later delivery.

Mr. K. Thompson: No, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give a more sympathetic reply to this suggestion of a possible reduction in this expenditure, which falls very heavily on certain classes of persons, particularly in view of the fact that he is considering raising charges in other directions?

Mr. Thompson: The change which the hon. Gentleman proposes would cost the Post Office something in the order of £500,000, which would have to be recovered by alterations in some other charges which would be equally unpopular.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Regional Programmes

Mr. Grey: asked the Postmaster-General when it is expected that more Home Service programmes will originate from the regions.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): I assume the hon. Member has in mind the recent statement bv the

B.B.C. that Regional programmes of country-wide appeal will be increasingly included in its main programmes. The B.B.C. informs me that this policy is now in operation and will be developed as opportunity offers.

Mr. Grey: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the problem of the North-East, which seems to have no power at all over programmes which will satisfy listeners in the North-East? Will he consider the matter and see what can be done to give a better service to the North-East?

Mr. Marples: The problems of the North-East are continually in my mind. Programme content is a matter for the B.B.C.

Mr. Shinwell: But will the right hon. Gentleman get them out of his mind and get them resolved? Why should we be treated in this scurvy fashion?

Mr. Marples: I would not dare to treat the right hon. Gentleman in a scurvy fashion.

Dame Irene Ward: This is a very sore point with the North-East. Does not my right hon. Friend think that we ought to have two Home regional programmes to make up for having to share a wavelength with Northern Ireland, thus cutting our share in half?

Mr. Marples: The Northern Ireland portion of the programmes which are broadcast in the North-East is less than 10 per cent, of the 115 hours a week broadcasting for the area.

Licences, Northern Ireland and North-East Region

Mr. Grey: asked the Postmaster-General the number of licences issued to holders of wireless sets in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Marples: The answer is 256,566 at 31st March, 1957. The licences for sound only numbered 193,218, and for television and sound 63,348.

Mr. Grey: asked the Postmaster-General the number of licences issued to holders of wireless sets in the geographical counties of Durham and Northumberland.

Mr. Marples: The answer is 606,615 at 31st March, 1957. The licences for sound only numbered 349,529, and for television and sound 257,086.

Mr. Grey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it rather ridiculous that although the larger proportion of licence holders is in the North-East—compared with Northern Ireland—time and time again there are more programmes for Irish listeners than for the North-East region? Will he pay attention to the Radio Times to see what type of programme the North-East is getting? If he feels that we are getting a raw deal, will he make sure that at some time we shall have our own wavelength?

Mr. Marples: I cannot promise the region its own wavelength for the simple reason that that is a question of international agreement, but the allocation of programme time and content is a matter for the B.B.C. I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), that less than 10 per cent, of the programmes heard in the North-East are from Northern Ireland and that more than 90 per cent, are from the Home Service or the regional service.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Do not the right hon. Gentleman's figures indicate that it is time something was done about the North-East Coast? Right hon. Gentlemen have repeatedly said that they will do something about it. Can the Postmaster-General press the B.B.C. to reallocate the wavelengths allotted to Britain so that the North-East can get something better?

Mr. Marples: The B.B.C. is not in a position to re-allocate wavelengths. This matter has been continuing for many years, and the real answer, as I have explained, is V.H.F. The North-East has its own V.H.F. programme with nothing from Northern Ireland on it.

Mrs. McLaughlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people in Northern Ireland are no more anxious to share a wavelength with England than the people in the North-East want to share a wavelength with Northern Ireland? The people in Northern Ireland are also aware of the difficulty in which the Postmaster-General finds himself and are anxious that V.H.F. should be the answer to the problem.

Mr. Short: Do not the figures the right hon. Gentleman gave in answer to Questions Nos. 12 and 13 show that these two areas have the largest numbers of listeners, and is it not disgraceful that

twelve years after the war we should still be without a wavelength?

Dame Irene Ward: Your fault.

Mr. Short: With regard to the parrot cry of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this arrangement was started by the Conservative Caretaker Government?

Mr. Marples: It is not a question of the number of listeners but of the number of medium wavelengths available, which are restricted. The party opposite were not able to do anything about it when they were in power. This is a technical problem concerning the limitation of wavelengths available, but the present distribution gives us the best we can get. The North-East has excellent reception for 115 hours a week, less than 10 per cent, of which comes from Northern Ireland. Any other choice—and this faced hon. Members opposite—would mean that others in the country, many hundreds of thousands, would get nothing at all, or very bad reception for many hours.

Dame Irene Ward: Give them the dates.

Mr. Ness Edwards: We all thought years ago that V.H.F. was the answer to the problem. As it has turned out, it is not the answer, and the B.B.C. should be moved from its stubborn position and made to re-allocate wavelengths in the country.

Mr. Marples: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman's previous thinking has proved to be wrong.

Institute of Directors (Films)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Postmaster-General if the Independent Television Authority has now reached a decision about the showing of sixteen propaganda films at a cost of £160,000 by the Institute of Directors.

Mr. Marples: The I.T.A. has not yet come to a conclusion about the new proposals.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that the Institute's prospectus states:
 We have been described—not inaccurately
—as the bosses' trade union ";
that the President is Viscount Chandos, and that at the last General Election the


Institute spent thousands of pounds on the private enterprise poster campaign? Does the Minister seriously ask the House to believe that such an organisation would spend £160,000 and buy advertising time without a political motive in mind?

Mr. Marples: I prefer to wait and see what the films are like when they are made. How on earth can anyone make a judgment on films which have not been made?

Mr. Farey-Jones: Does my right hon. Friend accept the reference to propaganda films?

Mr. Marples: I do not accept it at all. Two separate issues are involved here. The films themselves have not been made, and no one can pass judgment on them. The I.T.A. was concerned about the descriptive material which accompanied the circular letter which was sent round. Upon that they are now negotiating, and it is a matter between the I.T.A. and the Institute of Directors. So far as the films are concerned, it is clear that nobody can pass judgment on them.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the Minister aware that a pilot film has been made; that this was the subject of examination, and that this proposal for sixteen 20-minute films is a continuation of the campaign conducted by this Institute at the last General Election? Is the Minister also aware that the Institute's annual report says so? I ask the Postmaster-General to try to keep propaganda off commercial television.

Mr. Marples: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The pilot film or any other film which has been made is not one which it is intended to show. If the Institute of Directors wish to show the magnificent achievements of British industry in a dispassionate and impartial way, I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should wish to preclude the British public from seeing these films.

Mr. Allaun: I beg to give notice—this is something which I have never previously done—that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment.

Advertisement

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the Sunday paper item transmitted from the

London commercial television station in which the advertiser determines the contents of the programme offends Section 4 (6) and the Second Schedule of the Television Act, 1954, and the Postmaster-General's Rules on Advertising; and what action he proposes to take thereon.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. The item referred to is an advertisement. It is not a programme but an advertising feature, and clearly recognisable as such. It does not contravene the Television Act. Therefore the second part of the Question does not arise.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a 15-minute programme; that it is put forward as a programme item, and that it contravenes his own rules as to the time taken up by advertising matter? In those circumstances, as this is a clear indication of a sponsored programme, will the right hon. Gentleman exercise his authority in the matter?

Mr. Marples: Many of the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman are wrong. The Postmaster-General has not laid down the amount of advertising necessary, and this particular item is quite clearly an advertising item. Where the right hon. Gentleman has gone wrong is in this: the Act distinguishes between programmes and advertisements. Section 4 (6) deals with programmes, and the Second Schedule deals with advertisements. The Second Schedule says:
The advertisements must be clearly distinguishable as such and recognisably separate from the rest of the programme.
The item referred to in the Question comes within that definition. It is shown as advertising in the T.V. Times. It has an advertisement at the beginning; in the introduction it says that it is an advertisement; at the end it says that it is an advertisement, and about every two or three minutes during the actual item itself it repeats that it is an advertisement.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor placed in the Library rules as to advertisements and the times between them? If he is not aware of that, he is not fit to hold his job.

Mr. Marples: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Of course I am aware


of that, but in his original supplementary the right hon. Gentleman said that these rules were made by the Postmaster-General. They were not; they were laid down by the I.T.A. The only thing this House has said about the length of time of advertising is in paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule, where it says:
The amount of time given to advertising in the programmes shall not be so great as to detract from the value of the programmes as a medium of entertainment, instruction and information.
That is all this House has laid down, and the I.T.A. has interpreted it in a reasonable manner.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate a matter of this intricacy at Question Time.

North-East Region and Northern Ireland (Shared Wavelength)

Mr. Willey: asked the Postmaster-General what consultations; he has had with the British Broadcasting Corporation regarding the wavelength shared between North-Eastern England and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Woof: asked the Postmaster-General what consultations he has had with the Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation since 1st April, 1957, concerning complaints made by hon. Members from the North-East of England about the sharing of the wavelength.

Mr. Marples: Full consultation has taken place with the B.B.C. regarding any possible re-arrangement of medium wavelengths which would make it unnecessary for North-East England and Northern Ireland to share. The most recent consultations were in March of this year, following the debate on the Adjournment on 25th February. It was agreed that the present arrangements were the best that could be devised in the general interest, and this was confirmed in a further review which I made in connection with Questions on 10th April from the hon. Members for Newcastle-on-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) and for Durham (Mr. Grey).

Mr. Willey: While appreciating the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the effect that these consultations have taken place, may I ask him, in view of the melancholy conclusion, if he will resume these conversations and pursue them further?

Mr. Marples: I do not think there is any point in doing so unless and until we get more medium wavelengths, which is highly improbable.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is it not a fact that of all the wavelengths this one suffers less than any other from foreign interference?

Mr. Marples: It is perfectly true. Some of the wavelengths that we operate in this country, particularly in Wales, are subject to a great deal of interference from East Germany, but this particular wavelength, which the North-East enjoys and on which it has 90 per cent, of its own programmes, is the finest we have.

Mr. D. Jones: As the right hon. Gentleman says that what is required is additional wavelengths, will he say what steps he proposes taking to secure additional wavelengths?

Mr. Marples: There are no more to have. They are all allocated to foreign countries. We can only obtain an additional wavelength if we take it from another country. If the whole thing were thrown into the melting pot, it is highly probable that we should have less than we have now.

Mr. Short: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will terminate the appointment of the Director General of the British Broadcasting Corporation because of the failure of the Corporation to provide an adequate regional service in the North-East of England.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. The appointment of the Director General is a matter for the Corporation.

Mr. Short: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that we hold both him and the Director General responsible for this regrettable state of affairs in the North-East, and is it not quite obvious to him, as it is to everyone else, that the B.B.C. has dug in its toes and refuses to do anything about it? Does he realise that we are about fed up with this in the North-East and that we want a clean sweep, either of the B.B.C. or the Post Office, or both?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman may hold me personally responsible, but by Statute it is not me; it is the responsibility of the Corporation to appoint a


Director General. It is not my responsibility and I am only responsible for what I control.

Dame Irene Ward: Would my right hon. Friend kindly point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite that it was in 1948 that they surrendered our wavelength to an international convention which was brought into force in 1950, and that if they are fed up, as I am, with a shared wavelength, we are fed up with them for trying to put the blame on us.

Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend, in her usual trenchant manner, has put her finger on the heart of the problem; I was trying to be tactful.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 1948 is almost as ancient as the hon. Lady opposite?

Hon. Members: Shame. Withdraw.

Dame Irene Ward: Do not worry about me.

Mr. Shinwell: I withdraw the word "ancient" in preference for the word "antiquated."

Dame Irene Ward: I think that it is awfully funny.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform the House who is the representative on the Advisory Committee for the North-East and who appointed him and why hon. Members who are associated with the North-East were not consulted in a matter so important?

Mr. Marples: That is another Question, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the North-East is represented on this Council.

Dame Irene Ward: Mr. Mann is the name.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Will not my right hon. Friend confirm that this is a storm in a teacup? If new wavelengths were allocated to Northern Ireland and North-East England in the present circumstances, would they not be subject to continuous and constant interference from foreign stations?

Mr. Marples: That is true. The North-East of England already has the best medium wavelength in this country.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Whatever has gone on in the past, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is time to review the position in regard to the allocation of wavelengths in view of the advent of the American Forces Network in Germany, which is itself operating on medium wavelengths? They have increased their number of wavelengths in the last six years, and does he not think that, prima facie, there is a case for reviewing this important matter again, and will he consider doing so?

Mr. Marples: The only answer to this problem is V.H.F. I am sure that if there were another international meeting on the allocation of medium wavelengths we should come out worse than we are now. It would pay us to keep what we have rather than to have fewer medium wavelengths.

Mr. Short: asked the Postmaster-General what technical considerations prevent the sharing of a British Broadcasting Corporation regional programme by any two regions other than the North-East and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Marples: I would refer the hon. Member to my supplementary reply by my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General to the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) on 27th March. There is no escaping the fact that any other sharing arrangement would cause greater interference with reception.

Mr. Short: We know all about the mush area, but surely Northern Ireland and the North-East of England have shared this wavelength since 1945 and if, as the right hon. Gentleman says, it is impossible to get another medium wavelength, would it not be just and equitable to allow the two other areas to share it? If Scotland and Wales shared it, the mush area would fall over the Irish Sea. If the Western Region has two wavelengths why cannot the two other areas share it for the the next twelve months?

Mr. Marples: There are two reasons. So far as Wales is concerned, the medium wavelength that it has is subject to a considerable amount of interference from East Germany, which is making it difficult for the Welsh people to listen in at all. The North-East area has the best wavelength of all. If there were a reallocation, the North-East Coast, which


has less than 10 per cent, of news and items of interest from Ireland, would not have such good reception. It would mean that many hundreds of thousands of people would have no reception at all.

Mrs. McLaughlin: Is it not a fact that an adequate V.H.F. service is available both to Northern Ireland and North-East England listeners, which is not shared, and carries programmes of local interest?

Mr. Marples: The answer is V.H.F., and the North-East Coast has its own V.H.F. service which is not shared by Northern Ireland.

Mr. Short: On a point of order. I should like to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker. How can hon. Members who represent constituencies in the North-East get their grievances redressed? We have been at it for years and we cannot get any satisfaction, either from this public Corporation or from the Ministry. How are we to do it? Can you give us any advice?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot advise the hon. Member on that. It is frequently the case that Members do not get it all their own way. For that state of affairs I am afraid there is no remedy.

B.B.C. (Board of Governors)

Mr. Short: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will appoint a representative from the North-East of England to the Board of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir.

Mr. Short: Will the Minister say why not? In view of the fact that Northern Ireland has a representative on the British Broadcasting Corporation and the North-East of England gets the worst service in the whole of the British Isles, is it not time that our voice was heard further, because it is obvious that the B.B.C. takes no notice whatever of the voice of Parliament in this matter?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman should know that, with the exception of Governors for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who are individually appointed, if I may so express it, in virtue of their knowledge of the culture, characteristics and affairs of our people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and their close touch with Scottish, Welsh

and Northern Irish opinion, the B.B.C. Governors are appointed as a collective body and not to represent particular areas or sections of opinion.

Mr. Shin well: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is now two years since the Members of the Northern Group—Labour Members of this House—

Dame Irene Ward: And Tory.

Mr. Shinwell: —met Sir Ian Jacob and some of his colleagues to discuss the question of better programmes in the North-East? We were promised some improvements, but very few improvements have occurred since then, and unless we can get representation, or our representations are properly considered, we are bound to ask the right hon. Gentleman these questions.

Mr. Marples: Representations are considered. The original question was about a representative on the Board. There is a General Advisory Council which is
 for the purpose of advising the Corporation on the business affairs of the Corporation and on all matters which may be of concern to the Corporation or to bodies or persons interested in the broadcasting services of the Corporation.
The North-East has a representative on that Council.

Home and Light Programmes (Sharing)

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Postmaster-General (1) what wavelengths will be used for sending out the single programme into which, at certain times in the future, the Home and Light programmes are to be formed;
(2) on what wavelengths the Home and Light programmes, respectively, are to be transmitted when the new programme arrangements of the British Broadcasting Corporation are in operation.

Mr. Marples: I am circulating full details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Stewart: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he told me last week that these two wavelengths would be fully utilised? When a joint programme is being sent out, will it be on both the two wavelengths at once?

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir, that is so.

Mr. Stewart: If two wavelengths now being used at the same time to send out two distinct programmes and so give the consumer a choice are in future to be used to send out the same programmes at the same time, how can it be said that they are fully utilised?

Mr. Marples: But this has been going on since 1945. It is not new. When the Home and Light programmes join together they send out on their normal wavelengths. "Music While You Work" goes out on both wavelengths. It has been going out like that for ten or twelve years.

Following are the details:

B.B.C. HOME AND LIGHT PROGRAMMES


Long and Medium Wavelengths



Home Service or Home and Light combined


Station
Wavelength metres
Programme


Moorside Edge
434
Northern


Whitehaven


Cromer


Burghead
371
Scottish


Redmoss


Westerglen


Dumfries


Penmon
341
Welsh


Towyn 


Washford


Wrexham


Brookmans Park
330
London


Start Point
285
West


Barnstaple


Droitwich
276
Midland


Postwick


Lisnagarvey
261
N. Ireland or Northern


Londonderry


Scarborough


Stagshaw


Bartley
206
West


Brighton


Clevedon


Folkestone


Bexhill


Redruth
206
West


Barrow
202
Northern London


Ramsgate

Light Programme, or Light and Home Combined


Station
Wavelength metres


Main Transmission:



Droitwich
1,500


Auxiliary Service:



Brookmans Park
247


Burghead


Lisnagarvey


Londonderry


Moorside Edge


Newcastle


Plymouth


Redmoss


Redruth


Westergien

V.H.F. Stations


Station
Frequencies Home (or combined)
Mc/s Light (or combined)



Wrotham
93·5
89·1



Penmon
94·0
—



Pontop Pike
92·9
88·5



Wenvoe
94·3
89·9




921




Divis
94·5
90·1



Meldrum
93·1
88·7



North Hessary Tor
92·5
88·1



Blaen Plwy
93·1
88·7



Holme Moss
93·7
89·3



Sutton Coldfield
92·7
88·3



Norwich
94·1
89·7



Rowridge
92·9
88·5
Opening shortly


Kirko' Shotts
94·3
89·9
Opening Autumn 1957

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Goole

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Postmaster-General how many applicants are on the waiting list for business telephones in Goole; and what is the date of the longest outstanding application.

Mr. K. Thompson: Fifteen, of which the earliest is dated October, 1955. Next month I hope to provide service for all these applicants and for everyone else in Goole who is now waiting.

Mr. Jeger: Does that include people who are at present on party lines and want separate lines, or are those figures entirely separate from these allocations?

Mr. Thompson: If subscribers now on party lines want to change to exclusive lines, we hope that they will make their requirements known to the telephone manager and we will do what we can to meet them.

Booths, London Airport (Instruction Cards)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Postmaster-General if he will describe the steps he is taking to make clearer the instructions in the telephone booths at London Airport to travellers wishing to telephone to exchanges in the inner London area.

Mr. K. Thompson: Within the next few days, new instruction cards with a special note of the procedure to be


followed for calling inner London exchanges will be placed in the telephone booths at London Airport. Foreign language versions will follow shortly. I hope this will help travellers.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: While thanking my hon. Friend for looking into this matter, is he aware that the instructions at present merely explain how to telephone the delightful suburbs of Feltham and Hounslow, not very helpful to overseas visitors? Will he also make sure that the charge of the call to the London area, 9d., is also exhibited in the box?

Mr. Thompson: Yes, we are grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing our attention to this matter and for the suggestions he has made.

Mr. Usborne: Has the Assistant Postmaster-General considered the possibility of posting some of these instructions outside boxes rather than inside boxes, as in places like Paddington, for example, there is often a queue of people waiting for those inside the boxes to get on with the telephoning and to stop reading about how to do it?

Mr. Thompson: That is a very valuable suggestion; but the present Question relates to London Airport.

Subscribers' Accounts (Administration Cost)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Postmaster-General the average cost involved in preparing and sending out a telephone bill to a subscriber.

Mr. Thompson: In 1955–56 (the last year for which detailed data are available), the total cost per telephone bill rendered, including the collection of the amounts due, accountancy and overheads, was about 10s.

Mr. Lewis: Do we understand from that reply that 10s. per telephone bill is the cost of preparing the account? Is the Minister aware that at a trade union conference recently of Post Office staff it was stated that if there were a reduction in telephone charges there could be quite a lot more revenue for the Post Office? If the people who are doing the work daily have said that, will the Minister consider reducing telephone charges in order to make a bigger profit?

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman is mixing up his part of the story. The Question deals with the cost of preparing and collecting telephone accounts. I have given the hon. Gentleman the best information I have.

Mr. Shinwell: If it costs as much as this to send out the bills, would it not be better to economise by not sending them out at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Driving Tests

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a further statement on the resumption of driving tests.

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is now able to say when there will be a full resumption of driving tests.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The present total strength of 712 driving examiners are now engaged on driving tests. This number will shortly be increased to 750 on the completion of the training of new entrants.

Mrs. Castle: Is there not an enormous backlog of applications for tests? Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea how long it will take to clear it? May it not take several months, lasting well into the summer? In what priority will the right hon. Gentleman deal with it? Will he also consider giving priority to the learner motor cyclists who, until they have passed their tests, cannot take pillion passengers for a ride in the summer months?

Mr. Watkinson: There is a backlog, but I am glad to say that it is not so large as the hon. Lady has suggested. I am also glad to say that driving examiners are working overtime and that, as we shall have the largest force of examiners working that the Ministry has ever had, I am confident that we shall clear off the backlog in a reasonably short space of time.

Helicopters (Emergency Services)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if his attention has been called to the recent frequent calls for helicopter services in the saving


of life; and if he will now consider establishing depots around the coast which would supplement the service now being carried out by our lifeboats.

Mr. Neave: I am well aware of the valuable life-saving work done by the Royal Naval and Royal Air Force helicopters stationed around our coasts. These helicopters already provide a service such as the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. Member aware that during the summer season helicopters are frequently called upon to save people who are in difficulties in punts? Will the Minister take steps to see that some stations are established where these helicopters can render a service in the summer season?

Mr. Neave: It might be a good thing if I sent the hon. Member a list of the Royal Naval and Royal Air Force stations from which helicopters can operate for the purpose he wants. Perhaps he will consider it.

Learner Drivers

Mr. Weitzman: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, having regard to the danger on the road and traffic conditions, he will now restore the requirement that a learner driver be accompanied by a qualified driver.

Mr. Watkinson: I intend to restore this requirement as soon as learner drivers can get a driving test within a reasonable period.

Mr. Weitzman: Does not the Minister agree that the primary considerations ought to be the danger on the road and the congestion of traffic? Do they not constitute an unanswerable argument for the removal of the restriction and for restoring the requirement immediately?

Mr. Watkinson: No, not until we have made more progress with driving tests.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Hyde Park Comer and Marble Arch (Improvements)

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how soon he will be able to authorise a beginning on the road improvements at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch.

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when work is to start to implement his plans for relieving traffic congestion at Marble Arch, Hyde Park Corner and along Park Lane.

Mr. Watkinson: Legislation will be required to provide the necessary powers, and I hope to authorise the improvements as soon as possible after those powers have been obtained.

Mr. Gibson: In view of the urgency of this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman definitely inform us when legislation will be introduced? London is waiting for this.

Mr. Watkinson: If London is waiting for it, I am sure that the London County Council will attach the greatest urgency to it, as I know it does; and, of course, it is only with its co-operation that the necessary legislation can be prepared.

Hirwaun—Abergavenny Road

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress is being made with the new trunk road from Hirwaun to Abergavenny; and when he will be able to announce a date for the start of operations.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): The necessary preparatory work is in hand, and I hope that the Brynmawr— Abergavenny section will be authorised this year.

Tyne Crossing (Tunnel)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has yet decided in favour of a tunnel or a bridge for the new crossing of the Tyne.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has now received and considered the views of all the interests concerned about the proposed Tyne tunnel or bridge.

Mr. Watkinson: I have considered the views of all the interests concerned and, although a bridge would cost much less and provide more space for traffic, I have with some reluctance decided that it would not be an acceptable alternative.


I am, therefore, prepared to agree in principle to the construction of a tunnel with one two-lane carriageway.

Dame Irene Ward: Now that the decisions have been taken—which is very satisfactory—are we to retain our priority? In view of the urgent need of proper communication between the North and the South of the mouth of the River Tyne, when are we likely to get going on the tunnel? It is most important that we should not have our communications held up any longer. Can my right hon. Friend get along with it very quickly, please?

Mr. Watkinson: We will do the best that we can. I have made this announcement today because I know that the matter has been causing anxiety. There have been town-planning difficulties arising from the possibility of a bridge I have at least cleared that out of the way. I will take careful note about what my hon. Friend says about building a tunnel.

Mr. Willey: While welcoming the end of the uncertainty, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that the tunnel will take its priority, in other words, that it stands next to the Whiteinch project?

Mr. Watkinson: The only thing I am prepared to say is that my predecessors made various statements about this project and that I shall endeavour to implement them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

London Airport (Low-Flying Aircraft)

Mr. Orbach: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will stop low-flying aircraft using the north-east entry to London Airport.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): No, Sir. In westerly wind conditions, all aircraft must approach London Airport from the east. In order to line up for their final approach, a considerable proportion of this traffic must fly over the area to the north-east of the airport.

Mr. Orbach: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary must be aware of the intense irritation and annoyance caused to many

people in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies, and of the danger that threatens them from low-flying aircraft. Surely he will do something to impress pilots and navigators with the right way to go about landing their aircraft.

Mr. Neave: The height of the aircraft is dictated by the air traffic control requirements from London Airport and by the approach procedures which are followed. Since these aircraft are using the Watford homing area, it is inevitable that they should fly over the hon. Member's constituency.

Mr. Orbach: Is the Minister aware that the Post Office Research Station at Dollis Hill stands 600 feet above sea level and that aircraft have been seen flying immediately over it? From the ground they appear just a few feet over it. Does that not suggest that steps should be taken to prevent what might be a very serious and dangerous accident?

Mr. Neave: If the hon. Gentleman will send me details of that. I shall be glad to look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Passenger Services, Leyton (Overcrowding)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what report he has now received from the Transport Users Consultative Committee regarding the overcrowding and congestion of underground and steam transport conveying passengers to and from Leyton; and to what extent the report indicates that overcrowding has increased or diminished in recent months.

Mr. Watkinson: No report has been made to me, but I understand that the London Committee's findings on this question will be considered by the Central Committee at its meeting on 9th July.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the Minister do anything to speed this matter up, because as one who has experienced it sometimes himself, I know that the congestion is certainly extremely grievous and causes great hardship to numbers of people passing through the Borough of Leyton?

Mr. Watkinson: I know this is a difficult problem, and I shall draw the attention of the Central Committee to what the hon. Member has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Mr. L. J. Crickmar

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date he received a letter from the hon. Member for West Ham, North, concerning matters affecting Mr. L. J. Crickmar's claims; on what date he first communicated with the Governor of Kenya relative to this matter; on what date he received a reply from the Governor to this communication; on what date he sent a further communication to the Governor, and the date of this reply; and when he expect to receive information from the Governor of Kenya enabling him to resolve this matter.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): The significant dates are as follows. My right hon. Friend received the hon. Member's letter on 11th March. After the matter had been investigated in the Department, he communicated with the Governor of Kenya on 22nd March and again on the 17th May. My right hon. Friend has now received a reply from the Governor on the basis of which he is writing to the hon. Member.

Mr. Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is a bit too much to expect an hon. Member's constituents to have to wait from 11th March to 22nd May—even now the hon. Member has not received any definite reply, except a formal acknowledgment—and certainly it is his opinion that he would not have received anything at all if he had not put this Question? Will the hon. Gentleman see to it that the Governor of Kenya and other Governors, if it is their fault, send back a reply in less time than just on three months when a case like this is raised?

Mr. Profumo: It is certainly due to no fault of the Governor of Kenya. I think the hon. Member would wish all the matters he raised—no matter how apparently simple they are—to be investigated fully by my right hon. Friend in the Department before local Government, which of course have a great deal of detailed work on their shoulders, are consulted. I think that when he gets the letter he will see that it has required a considerable amount of work and my right hon. Friend wants to give him a thought-out answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Copperbelt (Restricted Persons)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of the detainees in Northern Rhodesia expelled from the Copperbelt on 10th September, 1956, have now appeared before the Commissioner Mr. Justice Windham; and how many of these restricted persons have been declared free to return to their homes.

Mr. Profumo: All persons at present subject to restriction orders (not all of whom were detained immediately after the declaration of a State of Emergency on 11th September, 1956) have appeared before the Commissioner; the Governor is now awaiting the Report which the Commissioner is to render to him under Section 8 of the Emergency (Transitional Provisions) Ordinance. The Governor must consider the Commissioner's Report before deciding whether or not to make a substantive restriction order in any particular case.

Mr. Johnson: Is it possible for the hon. Gentleman to tell us when he thinks we may be able to have some statement on this matter?

Mr. Profumo: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member a date when that will happen, but if he wishes I will try to keep in touch with him personally by tetter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTIGUA

Sea Island Cotton

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what price per 1b. was paid to the growers of Sea Island cotton on the island of Antigua in the last accountancy period.

Mr. Profumo: The price paid for seed cotton was 27·45 West Indian cents per 1b.

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether this country now has a firm agreement with Antigua to take all that island's crop of Sea Island cotton; and what quantity was taken in the last accountancy period.

Mr. Profumo: The crop is sold through commercial channels by the West Indian Sea Island Cotton Association. I understand that a recent visit to the United


Kingdom by a delegation of the Association resulted in satisfactory arrangements being made for the sale of the entire 1956–57 crop from all the producing islands. The whole of the 1955–56 crop from Antigua, about 1,134,000 lb. was purchased by United Kingdom interests.

Mr. Jones: In view of the importance of disposing of these crops to these islanders, will the hon. Gentleman take care to see that in good time efforts are made to dispose of next year's crop in the same expeditious manner?

Mr. Profumo: I understand that both growers and buyers are satisfied with the arrangements which have been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEYCHELLES

Copra Stabilisation Fond

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is proposed to continue the contributions to the Seychelles Copra Stabilisation Fund.

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir; at least not at present.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this Fund is still urgently required?

Mr. Profumo: The Fund stands at the figure of £200,000. No payments have been made out of it since its inception in 1948.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN TERRITORIES

Teachers

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that African teachers in Northern Rhodesia are not permitted to take part in political activities; and to what extent this is the case in the Colonial Territories of Kenya, Tanganyika, and Nyasaland.

Mr. Profumo: My right hon. Friend is investigating the position in all four Territories mentioned, and I will write to the hon. Member when I am able.

Mr. Johnson: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that it is a fact that these men are not allowed to take part in political life in Northern Rhodesia? If he accepts that fact, does he not think it is childish, they having been to places like Fort Hare and Makerere universities and universities in Britain, that such men

in the public life of the Colony cannot take part in this way? Is it not possible for them to be candidates in elections in Kenya?

Mr. Profumo: As my right hon. Friend is making an investigation, it would perhaps be premature for me to make an announcement before that investigation takes place.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many African graduates are now teaching in territorial schools in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, respectively; and whether any of these have yet been appointed as education officers.

Mr. Profumo: My right hon. Friend is consulting the Governors and he will circulate this information in the OFFICIAL REPORT when he has their replies.

Mr. Ede: When he circulates the information, will the hon. Gentleman circulate the information he has promised to send to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) with regard to the previous Question?

Mr. Profumo: If that would be the wish of the House, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend would be prepared to do so.

Mr. Johnson: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in Nyasaland, for example, Africans are education officers, but they are not so in Northern Rhodesia? Does he not think it is somewhat childish in a society in which we speak of partnership that these men are not allowed to go on to advancement in their own profession?

Mr. Profumo: As I said in my last Answer, it is not very much good consulting Governors on these matters and then making ad hoc statements. I should prefer not to be drawn on that, but my right hon. Friend is making investigations.

Mr. Johnson: Is it not known that these are factual statements and should be known to the Ministers concerned?

Mr. Profumo: The facts that are known by my right hon. Friends and myself would be those we do not wish to investigate further, so I think the hon. Member may take it that we would wish to make further investigations of the facts which are not known.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[16TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Orders of the Day — Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments, 1957–58

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

WATER UNDERTAKINGS (REGROUPING)

3.29 p.m.

Mr. William Whitelaw: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
 in view of the increasing demands for waiter for industrial, domestic and other purposes, and the consequent need for the water industry to be fully equipped to meet these demands as efficiently and economically as possible, this House welcomes the action of the Government in encouraging the regrouping of water undertakings into larger and stronger units.
I realise that I cannot hope to arouse interest in the Amendment among those people who, wallowing in ample supplies of water, proudly proclaim that they "never touch the stuff". I also realise that in the circumstances there may be many hon. Members from Scotland who would be interested today in stronger liquid than this debate will provide. If they are, I can only remind them that water forms a very large proportion of that liquid.
On the other hand, I have no doubt that those who have experienced water shortage will take a very different view. In fact, as is so often the case in life, we appreciate the vital need for water only when we have not got it. As a result, so long as water comes out of the tap and Nature continues to provide her ample, frequently more than ample, supply, few people worry. Yet all the time the national requirements for water, whether for industrial, agricultural or domestic use, continue to increase.
My purpose in raising this subject today is to consider whether the present organisation of the water industry is fitted to meet this increased demand. Therefore, before I refer to the structure of the water industry, I want to examine the

nature of the increased load which is to be placed upon it.
First, there is the demand from potential new customers, as we cannot be satisfied until a waiter supply of some kind is universally available. This, of course, is a problem mainly for the rural areas. In 1939, one-third of the rural population of England and Wales was without a piped water supply. Today, thanks to the progress under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, and the subsequent Acts increasing the contributions of the central Government, the figure has been reduced to 10 per cent.
If the figures are related to the whole population, one finds that 95 per cent, have a piped water supply, but even if this is, as my right hon. Friend the Minister claimed the other day, a record second to none in the world, it still gives little satisfaction to the remaining 5 per cent., some of whom, alas, live in my constituency.
Secondly, the water industry must be prepared to meet increased demands from its existing customers. A Report submitted to the Ministry of Health in 1949, on the causes of increase in the consumption of water, showed that in the ten years 1938–48 water consumption in Great Britain increased by 20 per cent. In some districts it was as much as 30 per cent. The increase has probably been even more marked since then. This is due mainly to the ever-growing demands of housing and agriculture, and, of course, the rehousing of people in premises with modern sanitary appliances.
Although the increase in the domestic demand is perhaps the more obvious, it is estimated that the industrial demand is increasing even more rapidly. In London, for example, metered supplies for industry are increasing each year by an average of approximately 2 million gallons per day. When one considers that atomic energy, electrical power and the oil industries are particularly heavy consumers of water, it is clear that industrial demand must continue to increase at a rapid rate.
In agriculture, dairy farms require more water as production of high quality milk becomes ever more general, and arable farmers are turning more and more to irrigation of their crops as a means of increasing yield.
Lastly, the building of 300,000 new houses a year, each with at least one bathroom and lavatory, and the installation of these sanitary conveniences in existing houses, inevitably add greatly to the domestic demand. Average figures of domestic water consumption are, obviously, difficult to produce with any accuracy as they depend on many varying factors. However, I understand that a family of three or four in a modern council house uses approximately 100 gallons a day.
I will not attempt an arithmetical calculation on that basis to ascertain how much water is used per week in all the new houses erected since the war, but it is a formidable figure, although, of course, it cannot all be counted as increased consumption, because families will obviously have used some water in their old accommodation.
The provision of houses with modern sanitary conveniences confronts the water industry with a considerable challenge. Indeed, all the evidence from industry, agriculture and the domestic demand shows that the water industry must be prepared to meet an ever-growing demand for its product in the future. If it were to fail to do so, it would not only cause domestic inconvenience but hinder possible increases in industrial and agricultural production. Therefore, as a start I would say that, for these reasons, it is essential in the national interest to ensure that the organisation of the water industry is developed on the right lines now.
I now turn to the structure of the industry. At present, there are about 1,000 water undertakings in England and Wales, mostly run by local authorities, but including 90 water companies. Of these undertakings, 400 supply fewer than 10,000 people, and a further 250 supply fewer than 20,000 people. At the other end of the scale, approximately 120 companies supply three-quarters of the total population.
These figures in themselves would seem to indicate the need for some amalgamation. Indeed, this objective was recognised in the Coalition Government's White Paper of 1944 and the Water Act, 1945, which set up the machinery to carry out such regrouping by order.
Before I come to any sweeping conclusions, I think it is important to

recognise certain facts about the present water undertakings. They were built up by local initiative to meet local requirements for water. They have fulfilled this rôle with conspicuous success, and many of them are run on highly efficient lines today. There is evidence of this in the fact that shortages of water are comparatively rare in the country as a whole except in periods of prolonged drought. Furthermore, water is a cheap commodity as the charges for it are based on ability to pay rather than actual consumption. Many families, in fact, pay the equivalent of a pint of beer for their week's water supply.
I believe that these are reasons for the water undertakings to be justifiably proud of their achievements, and they are, naturally, loath to surrender their independence. But when we are faced with the urgent need for development, we surely have to ask ourselves whether many of these existing undertakings have, in fact, sufficient resources.
Can they, for example, hope to finance and supervise major capital works? In this connection, I wonder whether the capital investment of the water industry, now, as I understand, running at about £20 million a year, is really high enough when compared with investment in many other of the basic industries. Next, can they employ expert, full-time staff? This will become increasingly necessary as their undertaking expands. We must also decide whether the national resources of finance and water are sufficient to permit local duplication of pipes and local competition for sources of water.
Any such consideration surely leads to one inevitable conclusion; some regrouping and amalgamation is essential if the future is to be faced with confidence. If we accept that, we must decide what size future undertakings should be and how regrouping should be effected. I believe that the answers to both of these questions must to a large extent depend on local circumstances and local conditions. Obviously, there can be no hard-and-fast rule about size, but it seems very generally accepted that the existing number of 1,000 undertakings in England and Wales might well be cut down to approximately 200 or 300—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not one?"] I will say later, if I may, why I believe that the figure should certainly not be one.
As I made earlier what could be considered a slighting reference to Scotland, and as I have also omitted mention of that country from my speech, which might be considered surprising to those who know my antecedents, I would add that I understand that Scotland's water position is extremely satisfactory from every point of view. The Scots have plenty of water, their regrouping is proceeding as fast it should, and everyone, apparently, is very happy about it. Whether or not, as I hear one of my hon. Friends say, it is because they never touch it, I do not know.
Turning to the arrangements for regrouping, I hope that my right hon. Friend will do everything possible to encourage voluntary agreements among neighbouring undertakings. I cannot believe that compulsion will produce satisfactory results. Local ill-feeling is stirred up and this makes co-operation in the future extremely difficult. A joint board set up under a compulsory order starts under many disadvantages. I therefore want to suggest how my right hon. Friend might encourage regrouping by agreement.
First, some undertakings seem to associate amalgamation with the promotion of a new and elaborate scheme. As a result, regrouping is often represented locally as most expensive for the ratepayers. I believe that my right hon. Friend could dispel this fear if he encouraged the new joint boards to combine their existing schemes under one management. This method would surely lead to increased efficiency without any additional expense.
Secondly, if a new scheme is absolutely essential, could not my right hon. Friend take powers to give special regrouping grants when the additional costs are heavy? Progress has been made with rural water supplies because there are grants for schemes. It would seem that grants for regrouping would act as a powerful incentive to undertakings to reach agreement.
Thirdly, when undertakings want to regroup it is surely worth while for the Minister to approve their scheme on that ground alone, even if the costs are heavy or other circumstances are not entirely to his liking. Once a scheme is turned down, or fails to proceed for some

reason or other, the opportunity for regrouping may well be lost. I want to submit some local evidence to support this view from experience in my constituency in Cumberland.
Under instructions from the Cumber land County Council, a Report was published in 1945 under the title of "Survey of Water Resources of Cumberland." As a result, the County Council and some other local authorities agreed to form a joint board —

Mr. James Harrison: Is not that the wettest county in the country?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, and that is all the more reason why we should have a first-class water supply in all parts of the county, which is not the case at present.
A Bill was promoted, its passage was not opposed by the Ministry, and the North Cumberland Water Board Act received Royal Assent in 1947. But the scheme, which would have solved Cumberland's water problem, foundered on the rocks of restrictions on capital expediture, and never started. I do not, in any sense, wish to make a party point of that because, as we all know capital restrictions have been very common with Governments of all parties. I am merely citing the example of what happened in this case.
Further negotiations about this board also came to naught. The Ministry of Agriculture and the Board of Trade declined to give grants to the constituent authorities, who were entitled to them. It was always considered that the scheme proposed by the new joint board was too expensive in initial capital expenditure. As a result, the smaller individual undertakings have had to proceed with their own small schemes to meet the demand for water. The cost of these, of course, is considerable. Already, it is mounting towards the estimated cost of the major Caldewhead scheme, and the water supply, despite our rainfall, is still unsatisfactory in many districts.
No doubt many good reasons can be advanced for the attitude taken by Governments in all stages of these negotiations, but one fact none of us can dispute. A great opportunity for regrouping was lost then. It may well be more difficult to achieve the amalgamation now as, needless to say, the local feeling in


Cumberland towards the Minister's new circular is inevitably somewhat cynical. They say, with some reason, that it would appear from this that they were about fourteen years ahead of Government policy. Therefore, if this experience emphasises the danger of turning down schemes for regrouping, it also proves, I believe, the need for my right hon. Friend to give careful consideration to local circumstances as well as to local conditions.
I support the policy of regrouping existing water undertakings into larger and stronger units because I believe that is an essential and logical development if the increasing national requirements for water are to be met. But I do not want the water industry to lose its essential local character. I am convinced that my right hon. Friend will best pursue his policy if his encouragement is based on the carrot rather than on the stick. In fact, I hope that my right hon. Friend will achieve results not by hasty and sweeping compulsory orders, but by a gradual and steady process of voluntary local agreement amongst neighbours.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I beg to second the Amendment.
For many years I have taken an interest in water, not only for washing but for drinking at odd times as well. I have had experience of the industrial use of water as well as the use to which it is put in an area such as I represent, a rural area which is mainly agricultural.
From my industrial knowledge, I know that where water is used in a power plant, for instance, in a boiler, the industrial organisation can put into operation an automatic softening plant to make certain that the boiler tubes, condenser tubes, and so on, do not need to be renewed if at all times the person operating that plant has a reliable base upon which to work, such as a standard alkali content and a percentage of hardness. The average person who takes water for granted would do well to consider that it is essential for industrial users to have a supply of water in conditions in which they can rely upon a base standard such as is available in connection with other services—for example, electricity.
I want to pay a tribute to the great amount of work which has been done by

the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in this matter. I have studied very closely one of the water surveys which have been issued, and that is the survey dealing with Devon. I must admit that I have not read the other 30 surveys, but when one considers the detail embodied in these surveys one appreciates the great amount of work which has been done by the Department, and I think we should pay tribute where it is due.
The Devon survey was published in October, 1954. Since then, although there have been conferences of local authorities who had the opportunity of studying this survey, not much agreement has been reached so far. One is conscious of a persistent tendency on the part of authorities—this is probably natural, but it is one of our greatest problems—to wish to maintain their own undertakings. One can understand that attitude when one considers the achievements of many local authority undertakings which, over the years, have ensured adequate supplies of water and have piped it to as many of their ratepayers as possible. Many of the local authorities in my constituency as well as in other parts of Devon are very proud of the work which they have done in the course of many years in ensuring an adequate supply of water for their ratepayers at as reasonable a price as possible.
There is also the problem which affects many urban authorities who resist being brought into an area which includes a purely rural area where a great deal of capital work still has to be done. It is natural for an urban undertaking to feel that as it has put into operation a system which suits all the citizens in the area, it should not be amalgamated with an undertaking which has very few of the heavy mains required to supply the people who have never had water before.
I would point out that in the latest Circular 52/56 this point is covered to a certain extent. Paragraph 11 states:
 A particular problem arises where some of the undertakers proposing to combine have an adequate and inexpensive waiter supply, while others have a much more costly supply or still have much work to carry out before their system is satisfactory. In such cases, it may be advisable in fairness to the consumers in the ' cheap-water areas' that provision should be made, in the order or Act, giving them lower waiter charges than in the 'dear-water areas' for a stated period of years. The Minister will accordingly be prepared to authorise diffential rates of this sort in appropriate cases.


In fact, that system is in operation in certain areas where amalgamations have taken place. The people in the cheap water area pay a lower rate for an agreed number of years, and when there is an amalgamation they pay no more than their proper share towards the undertaking. In passing, I understand that Honiton is one of those areas which became part of an amalgamation and that at present it enjoys the advantages that I mentioned earlier.
In considering this matter, local councillors on these local authority undertakings should consider the historical basis of the charge for domestic water. It has always been based not upon the amount of water consumed, but upon the consumer's ability to pay. It has always been the arrangement that a domestic consumer's supply is not metered and, therefore, no account is taken of the amount which he consumes. Of course, where a domestic consumer installs an additional bathroom his rateable value will increase and, therefore, he will, in an indirect way, pay a higher rate for his water than he otherwise would. But in the main, I consider that the payment for his domestic water supply is based upon the rateable value of his domestic premises.
When we consider that farm supplies are generally metered and a farmer will normally pay for the quantity consumed, it is clear that the interests of the ratepayers in both urban and rural areas are adequately covered. In thesecircumstances, I think it is ludicrous that some of our rural communities should still have to rely upon wells and ditches, with the problem of contamination which is always present in an uncontrolled supply. Many of these areas can be brought in if the local authorities are prepared to tackle this problem and sink some of their differences.
It is also interesting to note that enterprises such as attested dairy herds are now, in the main, in the interests of the consumer of the product, and therefore, the urban dweller who is the consumer should certainly accept his responsibility in making certain that we take the necessary action to eradicate disease and ensure that the quality of the product is the highest that can be obtained.
I think that the whole nation welcomes the great strides that have been made in

the treatment and eradication of pulmonary tuberculosis, but I do not believe that anyone will be satisfied about this problem until bovine tuberculosis is completely eradicated. Unless we eradicate bovine tuberculosis, which is always a problem which can aggravate the efforts of scientists, medical men and so on, we are not really tackling the problem properly.
Therefore, the urban dweller who is the consumer of the product should certainly not sit back in cases where, by his coming into a scheme, the result will be to make certain that the standard of the product which he eventually consumes will be far better and safer than it was before.

Mr. J. Harrison: I apologise for disturbing the sequence of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I wonder whether he would apply his mind to a particular aspect of the argument which he has been deploying—that of the supply of electricity to rural areas. I should have thought that the experience of the supply of electricity to farmers and isolated country units would have been an outstanding lesson in regard to the supply of an efficient water supply to rural areas, because we found that at times it was almost impossible to persuade the small undertakings to accept the responsibility of supplying the very sparsely populated parts of the country.

Mr. Mawby: I cannot quite follow the argument of the hon. Member. I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman is trying to justify the nationalisation of electricity. If that is so, I would suggest that he is now trying to advocate the nationalisation of water on the same basis, That may be a point with which I shall have to deal in a few moments; in fact, I certainly will deal with it.
Electricity is now nationalised and at present at least the occupants of a whole area are all paying their share towards making certain that electricity is available to all parts of the countryside. Therefore, I would not argue with the hon. Gentleman on that particular point, and also for the reason that, as a new Member of this House, I feel that I should probably be out of order if I continued that line of argument about electricity. However, I will deal with the question of the nationalisation of water later.
There is another thing which I have noticed in my study of the Devon water survey, which, I should imagine, affects many other parts of the country. It is that a number of water undertakings, particularly small ones, are very vulnerable indeed to drought conditions, because most of their supplies are taken from the intake of a fast-flowing river, where no impounding reservoir is used, so that no stock at all is kept to help to tide them over drought conditions.
In addition, and in Devon particularly, we have during times of drought a heavy influx of visitors, who do not always congregate in the urban areas, such as Torquay and Paignton. In fact, they visit and stay in many parts of my own constituency, but I would naturally be guilty of advertising if I started telling of the many beauty spots in Devon which they visit.
There is, therefore, a necessity for these authorities to make certain that their water supplies are not reduced to a mere dribble just at the time when the maximum number of consumers require to use them. There are also many people, I think probably the great majority, who do not realise the great potential danger of improperly controlled water supplies, and I feel that in every water undertaking there should be a fully qualified water engineer, whose sole duty it is to look alter and control the quality of the supply, the standard of the mains and, what is probably now more important than ever, to control any leakage where the supply, at any time, may be disturbed, which would allow back-siphonage of contaminated water into the mains.
For all these reasons, a fully qualified engineer should be charged with the sole duty of looking after these particular problems for the undertaking. Of course, if this is to be done, the size of the undertaking must be such as to justify the employment of such an expert. Naturally, we cannot here lay down exactly what size the undertaking should be. Here, as in many other spheres, we must make certain that an incentive is given to the right type of young man to take the necessary training which will qualify him for this particular task.
Ever since the Water Act, 1945, was passed there has been some uncertainty about the future in the minds of the present water engineers. There is always the uncertainty that they do not know

which undertakings will be co-ordinated, and which of these engineers would then become second to the head man, and so on. In the interests of providing an incentive to new entrants, and also of making certain that we keep the first-class men we now have in the industry, we should do everything possible at the earliest possible date to reduce and finally remove any uncertainty.
Let me here deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. J. Harrison), in his intervention. I want to make it clear that I am not calling for a scheme whereby many authorities with excellent records are absorbed into what they regard as —and they have said it to me many times —a soulless machine. Let me quote from the Water Companies Association a statement which I think would more or less sum up my own views, which reads as follows:
 Unlike electricity and gas, water does not lend itself to large-scale methods of production.
I think everyone will agree with that.
 A source of water supply varies, both in quantity and quality, with such widely differing factors as geology, topography and the incidence of rainfall. The greatest single factor in the cost of water is the cost of distribution, and particularly that of laying mains. Therefore, the industry always endeavours in the first instance to obtain its water from a local source. For this reason, water is essentially a local service that can best be administered locally. The idea of a national water grid first came into prominence after the drought of 1934. It was then suggested that water shortages could be avoided by establishing the water equivalent of an electricity grid system. The suggestion was closely examined by a committee of distinguished technical experts and unanimously rejected as technically and economically impracticable.
That, I feel, adequately sums up my attitude towards any ideas of nationalisation, water grid, or whatever may be suggested. I feel that it is a local matter, but that the undertaking should be of a size which can afford to have its impounding reservoir or reservoirs and can have a fully qualified engineer who will make certain that the water is of the right quality, who will make certain that the mains are adequately looked after and checked and who will check leakages. I feel that when that happens we shall have the ideal water supply undertaking.
I therefore sincerely hope that many more voluntary amalgamations will take place, and that if these take place we


shall see men with past experience, instead of resting on their laurels, as some appear, unfortunately, to be doing at the moment, joining together to form joint undertakings capable of fulfilling all our present-day needs.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) has rendered the House a considerable service by raising the question of our national water supplies. I thought that he approached it in a most constructive way, and although he has not gone as far as I should have wished, nevertheless he has enabled us this afternoon to discuss what is an important national issue.
As the hon. Member rightly said, the demand for water, both for domestic use and for industrial expansion, is growing every day. He mentioned the large number of new houses and flats which have been erected in this country since the end of the war and said that they contain piped water, sanitation, bathrooms, and hot water systems. I understand that in those houses water consumption may be about 40 gallons per person per day, and, in some cases, even more. I thought he was right, however, to remind us that there are in this country about 800,000 houses, 5 per cent, of the total, which have no piped water supply at all. Of course, most of those houses are in our rural areas, although there are many in the larger towns which have no water supply or which share an outside tap.
Well over 50 per cent, of the total quantity of water consumed in this country is used for industrial purposes, and the bulk is used by a very few industries —steel and petroleum refining, steam-electric power generation, paper manufacturing, and the chemical industry. I understand that to make one ton of steel or sulphate paper, over 60,000 gallons of water are required. It is obvious that expansion in these industries and the tremendous development in atomic energy mean that there will be a further huge demand for water in the coming years.
I believe that it has been estimated that in the United States the demand for water will increase by about 90 per cent. During the next twenty-five years. This country may not need as much as that, but we

shall need very much more water if we are to carry through our policy of industrial development.
Both the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, who moved the Amendment, and the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) who seconded it, have referred to the rural areas. What they have said is, of course, true. Many farmers have achieved a very high degree of mechanisation, but are still compelled to drag water to the cattle in an old cask on a cart. Many farmers are unable to get their dairy herds attested because their water supply is not pure enough to satisfy the Ministry's inspectors.
In the light of this growing need for water for industry, for agriculture and for domestic use, what is our position nationally? I would say that our present system, in regard to both the conservation and the distribution of the nation's water supplies, is grossly inadequate. The hon. Member referred to the structure of the water industry: 920 water undertakings are in the hands of local authorities, 129 are in the hands of private companies and one is in the hands of a new town corporation, making a total of 1,050 undertakings.
Now that the proper planning of our water resources has become essential in the national interest, it is manifestly absurd that in this small island over 1,000 agencies should be responsible for our water supplies. Out of the 1,050 agencies which I have mentioned, 351 are undertakings which cover areas of 5 square miles and under. Clearly, the time is well overdue when the Government should take the whole question in hand as one of great urgency.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government has recognised the existence of the problem, because I understand that a little while ago he circularised local authorities on the question of greater amalgamation. The Minister himself has considerable power under the Water Act, 1945. I think he might well go far towards a solution of our problem if he exercised his power under Section 9 of the Act fully.
Even so, I argue that the existing law is quite inadequate. For example, it enables local authorities to promote Private Bills in Parliament allowing them to tap valuable water resources, regardless of the


overall national need and of the interests of the areas from which they take the water. In days like these, when water is so precious a commodity, I believe that national planning is absolutely essential and that the Private Bill procedure is archaic and may even militate against the national interest.
What, therefore, is the answer to the problem? This is where I would join issue with the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. Although he clearly understood the nature of the problem and posed it, I thought, very well, he did not try to present an effective solution. He suggested that our problem might be solved by regrouping agreements. Surely this has been possible for a long time past, and the results so far are not very encouraging. We shall have to wait a very long time for adequate results if we are to wait until all these undertakings agree to amalgamate.
It is not necessary to enter into any arguments about the merits or demerits of public ownership, because 87·6 per cent, of all the undertakings in existence are already publicly owned. What is needed is a coherent national plan, efficiently administered. There are many areas, we must remember, which will never have a piped water supply unless there is some broad national planning. To give two short examples from the rural area of Wales, how can the Tregaron rural district with a Id. rate which produces £34, and the Machynlleth rural district, with a product of a Id. rate of £26, launch a water scheme?

Mr. J. Harrison: They will have to sink wells.

Mr. Hughes: They are using wells. People are still carrying water in buckets in the villages and farms.
Even with a Government grant, these district councils would still have a crippling burden to carry on top of the general rates. The House must face the absurdity of this situation. At the same time, wealthy authorities, because of the means at their disposal, are able to go into these areas and take water from them for their own purposes without in any way of benefiting the districts themselves.
I suggest that in considering a better administrative set-up we must separate the functions, and I was rather surprised

that neither the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, nor the hon. Member for Totnes discussed this point. We must separate, first, the functions of conservation, general supervision and planning, on the one hand, from distribution and purification, on the other. I suggest that the ownership general planning, conservation, and the supervision of our water resources should be in the hands of a national body, or, perhaps better still, in the hands of the Minister of Housing and Local Government himself. After all, he is now the Minister for water supply.
At present, these resources do not appear to be vested in anyone and can be acquired by Private Act of Parliament. On the other hand, the distribution and purification of water supplies should be the duty of regional undertakings, and perhaps in Wales and Scotland of national undertakings. Those private undertakings which remain would, of course, be taken over. I do not say that I favour wholly nominated bodies or corporations to do this work. I should like them to be largely on a local authority basis, elected by the county councils, and district councils, with a limited number of members nominated by the Minister.
In this context, it would be as well if the House considered the pattern of the river boards, because there we have an organisation which works well. I do not wish to be dogmatic in these matters, but I think that the set-up which I have suggested is a good one, because there will be Parliamentary accountability and, at the same time, a democratic base. One thing is perfectly clear, that the present set-up of 1,050 undertakings must be drastically curtailed in the national interest.
About 3½ million people in this country are without piped water. The national need for water is growing alarmingly day by day and, obviously, a bold and imaginative approach is required urgently. I hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will grapple with this problem forthwith.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) has just told us that the methods for conserving water in his area are


grossly inadequate. He comes from a rather damp part of Wales and he will appreciate that the conditions on the eastern side of the Kingdom, where I come from, are far worse. In fact, the state of the Eastern Counties, in particular, Lincolnshire, was mentioned in the 1944 White Paper, "A National Water Policy." The White Paper stressed the importance of devising some way of building up a public interest to prevent the misuse and waste of underground sources of supply in the Bunter sandstone, which is an area of the Sherwood Forest, and in the Lincolnshire limestone areas.
Hon. Members will realise that the North Lincolnshire Water Board is the first example of a compulsory amalgamation in the regrouping of the water undertakings. I am certain that hon. Members will be very sympathetic towards the feelings of my constituents and to the feelings of the members of some of the rural district councils who are involved in this North Lincolnshire water undertaking. These people, particularly the members of the rural district councils, feel that they have tackled the problem of water supply in rural areas with energy and foresight, and they see no reason why the responsibility should be taken from them.
Furthermore, they feel that the directly elected representatives of the district are the people who are best suited to decide how the water resources of the district should be divided. They also feel—and we all know—that the services they have given have been truly local and in many cases personal. I hope that when my hon. Friend winds up the debate he will give us an assurance that in the amalgamations of water undertakings there will be a fair representation of all the smaller water companies and the smaller rural districts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) suggested that there was a need to hold out a carrot in this matter of speeding up the process of amalgamation. I can assure my hon. Friend that if he can give some guarantee about the representation on these water boards he will be holding out a tremendous carrot to help to get on with the regrouping of these undertakings, and there will be less need for him to use the big stick.
Hon. Members who have studied the White Paper will also be familiar with the fact that it discusses pollution and says:
… there is need for some further tightening up of provisions against pollution.
Throughout the countryside we are involved in colossal expenditure to try to take water to all our rural areas and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) said, it is an enormous expenditure. Large distances have to be covered for very low consumption.
All that is brought about because the surface water in this country today is not fit for even animals to drink. It is all very well urging local authorities and the other people concerned to push on with amalgamation of their water services by co-operation, but many people in my part of the country feel disappointed with the feeble efforts the Government have made to obtain any sort of co-operation on a national drainage policy—because the problem of underground water supplies cannot be separated from the problem of drainage and surface water.
It is ridiculous that some of the most famous brooks in the countryside should now be cut off by two strands of barbed wire, with cattle forced to drink a piped water supply from a tin trough in a corner of a field. It must be admitted that pollution is largely caused by inadequate arrangements for local sewage disposal. That applies especially to flat countryside, such as I represent in Lincolnshire. The water flows slowly and the pollution from the drains and dykes, particularly in summer time, makes some villages almost uninhabitable. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind when they are reviewing the Saxilby village sewerage scheme which is now before them.
I want to refer to irrigation, which has already been mentioned in connection with water undertakings. The possibilities of the potential expansion of irrigation, particularly for agriculture, have not been examined in this country to date. An excellent paper was produced by Sir Peter Greenwell not very long ago which indicated the increase in agricultural production that we could have if only we could solve the problem of sufficient water for irrigation. It is in the Eastern Counties, where water is scarcest, that irrigation could have the greatest part to play.
I suggest to my hon. Friend that the alternative to adding to the water companies the burden of irrigation as well as the burden of the increasing consumption by industry which we expect in the next few years is to try to keep the surface water throughout the countryside pure. Rivers like the Trent, the Witham and the Nene ought to be sufficiently pure to serve the needs of the farms. We have now a policy for clean air. I suggest that what we need as well is a policy for clean and pure water. It would be valuable to our agricultural production, it would be very valuable to our industry, and it would be welcomed not least by the many frustrated local anglers, who find their sport killed by pollution throughout the countryside.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House are probably familiar with the words of Rupert Brooke:
 Sweet waters dimpling laugh from tap or spring.
Perhaps those words conjure up a somewhat irresponsible attitude, which is the outlook of so many towards our water supplies in the countryside today, and we have to try to build up a much more responsible attitude among the users of water. The White Paper which was published in 1944, on which the proposals in this Amendment are based, suggested that we should try to build up a public conscience about waste and the Government are urging local authorities and water companies to push on with the amalgamation and regrouping because of the demand we expect in the future, but on many of the modern housing estates the layout of the plumbing is far too prone to frost damage and consequent bursts and the most tremedous waste of water. Moreover, there are places which all of us know where the use of water in industry is somewhat extravagant.
My hon. Friend, speaking in Yorkshire the other day, said that 95 per cent, of the people of the country have piped water supplies today. I am quite certain that hon. Members on both sides of the House hope that in the very near future that figure will be 100 per cent., but we must see that all users of water realise what a precious asset our adequate supplies really are and take care of them.
It would be very wrong if, in this debate, we sounded too alarmist about water supplies, because by regrouping of

the undertakings we shall ensure adequate supplies in all areas for all purposes, agricultural and industrial, but supplies could be even more plentiful if this drive for regrouping were connected with a real and serious drive against pollution and waste.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. T. W. Jones: The House will be aware that when we are discussing this vital question of water supplies the Tryweryn Valley scheme will be uppermost in my mind. However, I know that if I dealt with that today I should be out of order, but I am hoping to catch Mr. Speaker's eye when the Liverpool Corporation Bill is discussed in the House in the very near future. Anyway, I think it is proper, when we are discussing water, that a Welsh Baptist should take part in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) has dealt with the broader issues, as did the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. White-law), who moved the Amendment, and the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), who seconded it. 1 was very interested to hear the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border say that in Scotland there is plenty of water and that the people there are happy. I can tell him why. In Scotland, they are able to keep their water for their own use. That is not true of Wales.
I could take the hon. Member to Montgomeryshire and there show him a delightful reservoir, and I am sure that, viewing that lovely stretch of water, he would say, "How fortunate the people of Montgomeryshire are to own this water." I should have to tell him, "My dear fellow, this belongs to Liverpool, and not 26 per cent, of the people of Montgomeryshire have a piped water service." We could cross into Radnorshire, where there is a reservoir of which I should have to tell him, "This belongs to Birmingham."
I want to warn the House very seriously that in Wales, and particularly in North Wales, we cannot afford to allow another drop of water to go across the border. If we do we shall be dry. We shall not have the water which we shall need in North Wales for our own purposes. That is the answer to the hon. Member. Ali Baba and his Forty Thieves have been frequent visitors to Wales to get water.
I want to deal with this question as it affects rural Wales generally, a country rich in water resources but, paradoxically, very poor in water supplies. Indeed, it is ironical that in those very areas where there are the large reservoirs to which I have referred, belonging to Liverpool and Birmingham, there is the lowest percentage of properties supplied with piped water. For example, as I said just now, only 26 per cent, in Montgomeryshire have it, and in Radnorshire only 64 per cent.
In Mid-Wales in particular the lack of water supplies has greatly retarded housing progress. We cannot expect people to live in houses which have not a water supply. I should be quite prepared to live in a village which has no public house or even a milk bar. I should not be concerned about them. However, I personally should not be prepared to live in a village devoid of a water service. We find it very difficult to establish housing estates because of this lack of piped water supplies. In the improvement of living conditions the presence of piped water supplies of adequate quantity and good quality is an essential factor. Lack of water supplies may hamper food production on the farms. An increased supply of water is required because of the increased production of crops and the larger number of livestock. The Government are asking for increased production on our farms. One way of securing it is to provide the farmers with a sufficient supply of water.
Afforestation is on the increase in Wales. I am glad of it, but we are hoping that in the very near future we shall have ancillary industries to our afforestation. It is a prerequisite of establishing the ancillary industries that there should be a sufficient supply of water. There are rumours, I hope not without foundation, that atomic power stations are to be set up in rural parts of Wales. I very much hope that this is so, but before they can be established we must be guaranteed a plentiful supply of water.
It is very interesting to make a comparison between the position prevailing in Wales and the position in Cumberland, Northumberland and Westmorland. The percentage of piped water supplies in the rural district of Wales as a whole

is 72 per cent., but included in that percentage are the three densely populated counties of Denbigh, Flint and Glamorganshire. If those three counties are omitted the percentage falls to about 56 per cent. In Cumberland, the percentage is 82 per cent.; in Northumberland, 83 per cent.; and in Westmorland, 86 per cent. It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border and the hon. Member for Totnes are very happy about the situation. I should be happy, too, if the position in Cumberland also prevailed in Wales.

Mr. Whitelaw: I hope that the hon. Member will not misrepresent what I said. I never suggested that I was happy about the position. I pointed out how desirable it was to have piped water supplies universally available and that we could not possibly be satisfied until that was the case. I do not think that that can be described as being happy about the situation.

Mr. Jones: Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Member. At any rate, he looked happy. I have never seen an hon. Member presenting his case with a happier look than the hon. Member. It was a pleasure to listen to him.
The Council for Wales and Monmouthshire, realising the parlous position in Wales, recommended in its second Memorandum, published in 1953, the setting up of a special agency to bring amenities, including piped water and sanitation, into rural Wales. This has been turned down by the Government. I am not surprised, they being a Tory Government and this particular Government of all Governments. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said that Cumberland was fourteen years in advance of the Government. That is easy. One could be at least a hundred years in advance of this Government.
The recommendation made by the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire was turned down flat. The more I think of that the more I realise that it was a great mistake, because instead of getting better the situation in Wales has been getting worse. I am glad to see the Minister for Welsh Affairs present. He is also the Minister for water, though I am sure not for milk and water. If the right hon. Gentleman takes some constructive action, as he has been exhorted


to do this afternoon, he will go some way towards meeting the very real need of the countryside in Wales.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Robert Mathew: I hope that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) will not expect me to follow him in his remarks. I think that the House must have been astonished, but instructed, to learn that AH Baba did not come from Arabia but from the English side of the Welsh border. The whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) for having proposed the Amendment and for the extremely clear way in which he set out the water supply problem that is facing the country.
I should like to support what my hon. Friend said and, in particular, to agree entirely with what I understood to be his two main conclusions—first, that some regrouping is inevitable, and for that my hon. Friend sets the background and gave the figures, and, secondly, that compulsion is undesirable, except where it is absolutely necessary.
I should like to sound a note of caution. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border appealed to the Minister not to use the big stick. Already, murmurs are running through the West Country and the shadow of that big stick, at any rate, is going before them. I hope that my right hon. Friend realises that there is considerable disquiet in the West Country about his intentions.
I therefore support the plea made by several of my hon. Friends that the Minister should use his compulsory powers with the utmost reluctance and, moreover, that even the threat of the use of this ultimate weapon, if I may so call it, should not be made, except in extreme cases, as a method of persuasion in guiding the local water undertakings towards amalgamation.
The majority of water undertakings are elected local authorities and I am sure that they will support the underlying aims set out in paragraph 2 of the Ministry's Circular No. 52/56, which states that:
 The underlying aims must be to promote the most effective use of the water resources of the country and to provide a reliable service supplying at an economic cost the quantity and quality of waiter that consumers need.
As I understand them, those words mean, first, efficiency now at the lowest possible

cost to the consumers and, secondly, as far as can be foreseen, that an undertaking will be able to meet future expansion of the needs in its area both as to quality and quantity.
Before compulsory action is even contemplated I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure in every case that possible future needs are estimated and proved beyond all reasonable doubt before even any suggestion of action is made. I have heard it suggested more than once that in the future something unexpected might develop here or there in certain areas and the present water undertakings would not be able to meet that unexpected need, even admitting that at present they provide an efficient service and have run an efficient organisation for a number of years.
I should like to mention four detailed points. First, I should like to know, what in the Minister's opinion, is today a "small undertaking." Is the test to be output? I understand that in the case of the Kent reorganisation the rough criterion was an output of 1 million gallons a day. It is suggested in certain quarters today that this is too small. The reasons normally given are that even an undertaking producing as much as 1 million gallons a day is incapable of supporting a whole-time engineer, a whole-time analyst, a whole-time accountant, and so forth.
It is realised by all who know anything about this matter that there are many efficient undertakings which have been operating for years and have worked well with the use of consultants and engineers who have other duties, especially in local authorities. It is not sensible to suggest that a treasurer who collects rates as well as water charges collects the latter any less efficiently.
It should be remembered that the expensive alternative to the part-time specialist is a full-time man who may be under-employed in the new grouping. There always is this risk. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend now, as regards the definition of the small undertaking which is so often referred to, whether he has in mind a minimum of 1 million gallons, or is it 2 million or, as is often suggested today, 5 million gallons output a day?
My second point is about bulk supplies. The Ministry Circular 52/56 in


paragraph 7, states clearly that the Minister is against agreements for the giving of bulk supplies as a means of the type of regrouping he has in mind. I ask my right hon. Friend why he takes this view if an efficient water supply is now being produced by this method and can in future be assured in particular cases by it. After all, Section 12 of the Water Act, 1945, provides for, and, indeed, encourages, such agreements. As my right hon. Friend knows, he has under that Section a specific provision for compulsory powers to be used to effect an agreement for bulk supplies if need be.
Would my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he has now decided to abandon or ignore Section 12 of the 1945 Act, and to concentrate on the powers given him to force the amalgamation compulsorily under Section 9? If he has decided to do that, I would like to know what are his reasons. The House will appreciate that it is a much stronger line than was contemplated originally by the Act. It is the shadow of the big stick, though I do not say that it is the big stick itself.
My third point is a short one. It has been said several times this afternoon that the majority of the water undertakings of this country are run by local authorities. It should be borne in mind by everybody who is considering this problem that regrouping, amalgamation, the setting up of the larger units—whatever their relationship, if any, to local authorities and however it may be arranged— is another blow to local government.
After all, joint boards are a step removed from the ratepayer and are not directly responsible to the electorate. This is an important point. It has happened with public utilities and in many other spheres. We have seen the building up of national bodies, all of whom have been at one remove from the elector. The ratepayers and the electors have direct access to their councillors, who are members of the authority which is running the water undertaking in a number of cases. By this method, however, we shall be inserting a further screen between the electors and the supplier of another necessity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) mentioned paragraph 11 of the circular, which gives the arrange-

ments for keeping water charges low for an authority or for a water undertaking which would have to raise its charges by the very reason of entering into an amalgamation or a joint board. He mentioned Honiton, a town in my constituency. I would point out that the arrangement provided for in the circular is only a temporary one, and in the case of Honiton the ratepayers, the consumers of water, have been given a respite for ten years, so that at the end of that period they will get the shock of the higher water charges. An increasing number of amalgamations will be necessary, but I am convinced that inevitably this will mean higher costs.
I want to give one example from my own constituency, the town of Exmouth, which is recognised as running one of the most efficient water undertakings in the West Country. The present output is on the average nearly 1 million gallons a day. Moreover, there is a proposal in existence to supply an additional 1 million gallons to a neighbouring area. Those plans are in being and can go ahead under a bulk supply system. I am informed that on any calculation which has been made, the increase in water charges to the people already receiving supplies in Exmouth will be considerable. The House will appreciate that there are difficulties in working out an exact calculation, but it is clear that this will happen. Even if paragraph 11 of the circular is brought into operation, it will be only a temporary respite.
There is one other aspect which I have no doubt my right hon. Friend has in mind. In these rural areas there is often a reluctance on the part of efficient undertakings to absorb a number of so-called black spots, or weaker brethren, or less efficient water undertakings. That is because this would have the inevitable result that an efficient undertaking must divert some of its resources and energies to make the others efficient, with the net result of lessening their own efficiency.
I recognise fully the need for a sustained programme which will bring a greater degree of water grouping and piped water to every house and farm in this country. I ask my right hon. Friend to put his big stick in the cupboard, and realise that compulsion should be used only with reluctance in this regard. As has been said, this is primarily a local


matter. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to allow plans to be worked out locally. Already, in the West Country we have heard a whisper that dictation from London is coming. I ask my right hon. Friend to allay those fears.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Dye: The difference between hon. Members on this side of the House and some hon. Members opposite is that they are urging the Minister to put a brake on the development of water schemes while we are asking that he take his courage in both hands and go ahead with plans to ensure that every area of the country enjoys a pure water supply. It is typical of hon. Members opposite that they should regard this from a purely local point of view, and be concerned about the cost rather than the advantages. A piped supply of pure water is a national advantage both for human beings and for cattle. We cannot exaggerate the importance of an ample supply of pure water.
Towns have taken their water supplies from the rural areas, and the original mistake was to permit the water to go to the towns without imposing an obligation to supply the local inhabitants at the same time. Our job is by no means complete. The time has not yet come when we should try to put the brake on progress in this direction.
In the election address which I issued when I first stood as a candidate for membership of the Norfolk County Council, in 1934, I said that I was in favour of a comprehensive scheme to supply piped water to every farm in Norfolk. I was probably the first person in Norfolk to ask for that, and I am rather proud of it. In the area where I am a member of the rural district council we had no piped water supplies at the end of the war, but now there is no village without a supply, and very few houses.
Although we have completed that task, the scheme is not comprehensive. We judged each area and took into account its natural resources. In some villages local supplies have been developed and, by means of electricity and a pressure supply, a whole village may be supplied automatically with little inconvenience and at a low cost. In some districts such a system could be worked for a considerable time, but eventually the underground

reservoirs may prove inadequate to meet the need and then it would be necessary to link them with areas where the supply is greater. Probably the quickest way to provide a supply of water is by a deep bore, but where underground reservoirs are not available a larger scheme is necessary.
In Norfolk, the development is uneven. Some areas still have no piped water supply and the local authorities in those areas are not making progress with plans to provide such a supply. I urge the Minister to persuade these local authorities to take the necessary action and not to allow local prejudice to stand in the way. Sometimes, the boundaries of rural districts prove an obstacle, because there may be an abundant supply of water just over the boundary in an adjoining area. In such cases, the Minister should try to persuade the local authorities to provide water by means of a bulk supply or a general scheme.
This is necessary not only for domestic supplies, but for supplies of water for agricultural purposes. Norfolk lies on the drier side of England and we need supplies of water both for cattle and for the irrigation of crops. We find it necessary to take a long view, to plan ahead, to ensure that the needs of the community are met.
It may be unfortunate that the responsible local authorities are rural district councils. It might have been wiser to have made the county councils responsible for schemes of water supply from the start. Then they could have employed engineers with sufficient knowledge to plan the development of their water resources. Rarely do small rural district councils have consulting engineers on the spot. Usually, the engineers have their headquarters in London and they have not sufficient local knowledge to be able to develop the water resources in the most economical way. Certainly, they have been able to make the work more costly than otherwise it would have been.
I should prefer to see county councils with capable water engineers on their staffs so that the water resources of the whole county might be developed. Therefore, far from urging the Minister to put away his big stick, I urge him to bring it out, and to say to local authorities which have not piped water supplies that they


must provide them within a reasonable period so that the inhabitants in their areas may enjoy the advantages of a piped supply of pure water.
Small local prejudices should not be allowed to stand in the way of such development. Water is a necessity and the supply of it should be abundant and cheap. That should be the aim of the Government and of all local authorities. I urge the Minister to turn a deaf ear, as it were, to some of the pleas made from the benches behind him, asking him to take into consideration almost anything rather than the need, from the point of view of our national health, of a fully developed pure water supply covering all the villages of rural England.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Hubert Ashton: In rising to address the House on this subject, I must at once say that I have an interest, in that for the past year or more I have been President of the Water Companies' Association. Perhaps I may be allowed to add that it is an office without profit.
I have listened with much interest to the speeches on this vital subject. The speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), who comes from the very dry part of East Anglia and complains about the shortage of water supplies in rural areas—of which we are aware—when compared with the speeches of his hon. Friends from Wales, in whose areas a large volume of water falls but who are still short of supplies, underlines that this is a problem with many diverse aspects. It might, perhaps, be of advantage at the outset to bear in mind what is the present position.
The industry today, made up of many different companies and local authorities, is supplying about 2,000 million gallons of water per day at a cost, for the average family, of Is. per day, the price of a pint of beer; and those supplies are going to 97 per cent, of the country. That is an achievement which cannot be bettered anywhere in the world. I do not say that there are not places where there is still room for a good deal of improvement. That is what this debate is about, of course. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) and my hon. Friend the Member for

Totnes (Mr. Mawby) have done the country a service in enabling this discussion to take place, and I believe that it is taking place on the basis that we all are anxious to ensure that that extremely valuable commodity, water, is conserved, used and distributed in the best possible manner.
So far as I can gather from our debate, from the White Paper, and from discussions in the Press, there is, on the one hand, the approach inherent in the circular which has been quoted, namely, that there should be some quite major measure of re-organisation and amalgamation; whereas, on the other hand, I gather from some of the remarks made by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they say, in effect, "Why stop at two or three hundred undertakings; why not go to one?"
A number of figures have been quoted, and the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes)—I am sorry he is not in his place—said that the statutory water companies were distributing about 12½ per cent, of the water supplies in the country. That is, I believe, an understatement. The figure is approximately 20 per cent. But however that may be, the hon. Gentleman dismissed those undertakers with a wave of his hand, and said, in effect, that in any proposals which ought to be made for a national plan, all those companies would automatically be taken over.
The attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite towards the nationalisation of water is not very clear or specific. A number of different things have been said. I would beg them, if I may, with great respect and humility, to realise that it would be a pity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said, if we were to approach the problem of supplying water as though it were similar to that of supplying electricity. There are many respects in which the two are widely different. There are the dry parts of East Anglia, as I said, and the wet parts of Wales, and there are available supplies from springs and rivers throughout our island. The problem varies tremendously from area to area and over quite short distances.
At the moment, with some hope that they will soon be available, we are awaiting certain vital reports of the engineering inspectors of the Department. Thirty-one have been published already, but there


are further reports to come, and some of us are waiting to see them before considering further the possibility of amalgamation. In my view, there is here a problem wherein reorganisation and amalgamation along the lines suggested by the Minister in his White Paper, in the circular, and in his recent speeches, will constitute the fundamentally sound approach.
The country as a whole has seen a great deal of nationalisation, and I am not sure that people are really prepared for much more. I doubt it. If hon. Members opposite were perfectly fair with themselves, they might well feel that certain aspects of nationalisation have not, perhaps, given the results which they, in 1945, told us would come about; and their expectations have not been fulfilled. Let us not approach the matter in any sort of dogmatic way, but let us rather approach it realising how many aspects it has, how many problems are involved, and how vitally important it is for our future.

Mr. John Edwards: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he speaks with very great authority on these matters. He said just now that he wanted to wait a little longer until he had certain further engineering reports before he could decide on amalgamation. I put this point to him and ask for his view about it. He will recollect that the original Statute under which we operate goes back to the Coalition Government. That is a very long time ago. How long are the companies going to wait before they make up their minds on amalgamation, considering that the Statute is now twelve years old?

Mr. Ashton: I am much obliged; I am glad to have an opportunity to make the point clear. I wanted to deal with this matter rather on a country-wide basis. The particular report I had in mind, however, when I spoke about that aspect was that relating to my own county area of Essex, and also of Hertford and Suffolk. In the country as a whole, particularly around London, there have been enormous movements of population, involving great changes in the requirement for water. There have been some very valuable and helpful reports already. I realise that there has been some delay, and that is something which, I know, is

in the mind of my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary.
The whole nation—I include hon. Members of the House in this—is very careless about turning off taps. Water has been altogether too cheap. We have not realised what a valuable commodity it is, but now we have a chance of reexamining the whole matter, and our realisation of the problem is becoming clearer. In considering, on the one hand, the approach through reorganisation and amalgamation on a major scale, let us not overlook the fact that, since these discussions began, about 150 water undertakers have, during the last few years, become amalgamated in one way or another. That is progress. I believe that additional progress along those lines will shortly—and, once it starts, possibly quite quickly—be made.
I do not want to be dogmatic. There may be a perfectly sound and clear argument on the other side, and no doubt we shall hear about that today; but, in a matter of such vital importance to us all, I hope that we shall all approach the matter objectively, and that ultimately the point of view which I have supported will be successful and will predominate. However, let us, above all things, bear in mind how vital is the subject that we are discussing, and how important it is for our country that our water supplies for the future for all purposes shall be assured.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. James Harrison: I want to put briefly a question to the Minister concerning pollution, which has not so far been mentioned today. I think it is true that almost every second advertisement on commercial television refers to some kind of detergent. I should like the Minister to cast his mind back to the Report of the Committee on Synthetic Detergents, because that is a matter which has a great deal to do with our future water supplies.
In the Midlands, and particularly on our large rivers, we are experiencing a catastrophe. When the traffic goes through the locks, the foam or the rubbery scum from these detergents is being blown out to such an extent that it is floating and drifting right over the tops of the boats and making it difficult to man them through the locks on the big rivers.


This is an important matter for us in that we have five or six rather substantial rivers in the Midlands. I ask the Minister seriously to consider this pollution which is occurring and which arises, in the main, from the wide use of detergents.
If the Minister has seen any of our waterworks or sewage disposal plants recently, he will understand the menace of this, not foam, but a rubbery dirty scum which is clogging the wheels of the locks and the machinery at the waterworks and sewage depots. I hope that the Minister will pay serious attention to this menace, which is recent in origin but is becoming a greater menace every day. There is great concern in and around the Midland towns.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Peter Remnant: I was sorry that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) thought that Members on this side of the House were seeking to apply the brake to progress in the supply of piped water. I do not believe it to be true, but I will meet the hon. Member's argument to this extent: that if I had to use the brake or the big stick, I would prefer the brake every time. What hon. Members on this side are seeking to do is to point out what may hold up progress in regrouping and prevent quicker progress. It is to that end that I should like to address a few remarks.
When there are a number of small undertakings in, say, a county and when one of them, which may be a local authority—perhaps the county council— has strong views—opposition to the proposal, if it is by Private Bill, is an expensive matter, and it is difficult for the smaller undertaking to come to a decision whether to co-operate or not, unless it knows the terms on which it can take part in the regrouping.
The proposal in my county, I understand, is that the undertakings shall have their loan debt taken over from them, and that is all. The extent of the loan debt may depend upon a great many factors. It may be the result of energy in taking piped water in difficult circumstances to rather distant hamlets and the like. On the other hand, it may be the result of prudent administration which has sought, within the limit of the charge, to pay off some of the loan debt.
I suggest that if a whole undertaking is to be taken over by the new board, the fair basis of merging would be the value of the undertaking apart from the loan debt. The equity must surely have some value. I am not concerned with whether it is owned by individuals or by the local authority on behalf of the ratepayers. The equity of an efficient undertaking has a value, and if it goes into a bigger undertaking, as most of us hope that it will, it should have money or money's worth in the regrouped undertaking.
Do not let us forget that there have been progressive landlords in the rural areas who have gone ahead of the water undertakings. Where supplies were available, they have harnessed the water and installed the necessary machinery and the cottages and houses on their land have been supplied privately with piped water for a considerable time. If anything like the big stick is to be used, are those people to be compelled to come in and take piped water from the regrouped board? If not, are they to be charged water rate for something which they will not want? What will be their position?
The earlier that a regrouping arrangement is proposed and the earlier that all the conditions can be disclosed to all the people concerned, the quicker will agreement be reached as to how the regrouping can best be done. No big stick can result in the same answer being found for all the different parts of the country. They have their own particular problems.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will consider some of the arguments used in this debate, including the use of piped water for sewage schemes, which are within the scope of his Department, and put out to the local authorities, perhaps in the form of guidance, his views on how he thinks the regrouping of water undertakings can proceed as quickly as possible. I am quite convinced that the quickest way is by mutual understanding and agreement in the areas concerned.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: I do not propose to detain the House for very long, but I wish to make one or two observations on the general question raised in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw).
It is astonishing that whenever the question of the development of our water supplies arises, there is a tendency to get involved in party politics. Hon. Members opposite, like the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton), for example, at once take us to task for considering that the royal road to the solution is by nationalisation, whereas the hon. Member himself took the opposite view. The fact is that we rely upon municipal enterprise for the major water supplies of the country.
The private companies are diminishing assets—and I am glad to see it. They were never able to match the need. They had neither the capital nor the influence. The municipal authorities, therefore, had to step in as a matter of sheer necessity. But at present there are serious shortcomings with which we are faced because neither private nor municipal enterprise can do what is necessary.
The urgent element in this issue is not the town but the rural area. How is it proposed to face up to the development of rural water supplies for Wales? Is it to be on the basis of municipal enterprise or of private enterprise? The majority of the towns in Wales have a population of not more than 5,000, and many of them have less. In my own home town we have a population of about 2,750, and a penny rate produces about £20. The nearest town on either side is fourteen miles away; we are in the heart of central Wales, where the majority of people are without a piped water supply.
How is it proposed to deal with this problem in that part of the country? I should imagine that what is typical of that part of rural Wales is also typical of the rural areas of Scotland and England. I cannot see how this rural development—which is so urgent for agricultural, domestic and industrial purposes—can be achieved unless a wider basis is provided.
I do not think that I should be guilty of any more dogmatic or doctrinaire attitude in advocating nationalisation here than I should be if I were to say, "Thank goodness that we have a Post Office which is a nationalised undertaking, with some public accountability for what it does." The question of rural water supplies is one of the most urgent of those public questions which by its nature is amenable to the process of nationalisation.
The urgent need today is to secure some unification of the whole of our water supplies and to subject them to some central authority, so that we may know just exactly where we are in the matter of our need for water. We should consider how best we can meet the need, which is felt so urgently by people in our rural communities.
I have lived through the period of agitations that have been aroused in regard to this matter. I am just old enough to remember being impressed by the battles which were so bitterly waged in my part of the country when the Birmingham City Council decided upon the famous Elan Valley scheme. I was entirely outside the scope of the campaign then because I was not capable of self-expression to the limited extent that I am now. Having viewed the scene since, I am all for the civil engineering scheme that we have in the Elan Valley, not only because of its economic efficiency but because it enhances the beauty of the landscape.
I must be careful now, because I do not want to get out of order, but there is an increasing amount of controversy, involving the Liverpool Corporation and the Welsh people, in relation to the proposed reservoir at Tryweryn. This House is handicapped in its task of answering the question whether we should endorse Liverpool Corporation's representations or, say, Manchester Corporation's demands for an increased water supply.
The whole procedure is wrong. Responsibility ought not to lie with any municipal corporation or with any private undertaking, and it should not lie even with the Central Electricity Board in relation to hydro-electric schemes such as the Rheiddol Valley scheme. There ought to be a central body responsible for surveying our water supplies and for knowing exactly where the needs of the community are most greatly felt. That body should have the responsibility of advising the Government of the day as to the way in which such needs should be met; and any such proposals should be brought before Parliament in that way.
I welcome the terms of the Amendment, but it does not go far enough. Amalgamation will not increase the water supply; it can only mean tidier administration and some measure of economy.


The regrouping of these water supplies may well involve a measure of redundancy for the employees. Here I must declare an interest, as a national officer of the National Union of Public Employees. A very large proportion of our employees are employed by these undertakings, and I should like to be assured by the Parliamentary Secretary that if there is any redundancy the rights of those men will be duly recognised in accordance with the well established legal precedents governing such discharges.
Those are my views upon the general question. Without the slightest qualification I can say that I am a wholehearted supporter of the unification of our water supplies, brought about by some scheme of nationalisation. That is the only hope of our getting, in rural Wales and in other rural parts of Britain, a water supply which is so very necessary.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: It is quite obvious that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise the importance of every household having a piped water supply. Many thanks are due to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) for initiating this debate and enabling us to air our views. There is a fundamental split between the two sides of the House on the question how that desirable situation can best be brought about.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: There is a split among hon. Members on this side as well.

Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) spoke about nationalisation, and rather suggested that if it comes about redundancy should be watched so that employees of various local authorities are not put out of work. I suggest that the hon. Member need not be afraid of that because when the nationalisation of water supplies comes about there will be no surplus employees. It will be a case of building up little empires, and the cost of water will increase enormously.

Mr. Denis Howell: Nonsense.

Mr. Baldwin: My County of Herefordshire is threatened with the big stick, and

it has been threatened with it now for two or three years. I believe that only one local authority was in favour of the county water board at one time: the others have been either frightened or persuaded to give their half-hearted support to the idea.
I cannot understand why a county like mine, with innumerable springs, of water oozing out of the fresh earth, should want to undertake a water supply scheme whereby water will be brought out of the river, put into a reservoir, rejuvenated and used again after having been used several times before. With all the little water springs that we have in the countryside we should not need any big undertakings. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) said that 3£ million people were still not getting a piped water supply. Nobody knows how many people there are without such a supply. We can only estimate by considering the figures relating to those who are not getting a water supply from local undertakings at the present moment.
Not many people, even in the most remote districts, do not get a fresh water supply of some sort. I live in a very sparsely populated part of Herefordshire. and I can speak personally on this matter. I have harnessed five springs, and I am getting on with harnessing the sixth, and I am supplying fourteen dwellings, three or four sets of farm buildings and several hundred acres of land. That fresh water supply is being obtained at very low cost indeed. In fact, one of the supplies is a gravitation supply, which involves no expense at all. If people were enterprising and harnessed up these springs that exist they could give a fresh water supply to all the remote districts which such districts will never get if there is a compulsory scheme.
There are many people in my county who are supporting the idea of a piped water supply because they think that even if they live in a remote district they will get that supply, I can assure them that they have not the slightest chance of getting a supply if they live right away from where the mains will be, I hope that they will think again before supporting the idea of a water board for Herefordshire.

Mr. Nabarro: Does that mean that my hon. Friend is opposed to Ministerial


policy? Am I correct in saying that there is a difference of opinion on this side of the House?

Mr. Baldwin: No. I think that the difference of opinion which exists is this. We on this side of the House all agree that it would be wise to have a voluntary system of amalgamating existing water supplies where that is necessary, and on the other side of the House it is suggested that a voluntary scheme will not produce results and that nationalisation is required.
As has been pointed out, there has been, since the White Paper came out, an amalgamation of about 150 water undertakings, and therefore I think that it must be recognised that a voluntary grouping of water undertakings is taking place. What we want the Minister to do is to encourage that voluntary spirit which exists between the different water undertakings.

Mr. J. Edwards: I gather that the hon. Member is opposed to a water board for Herefordshire? Would it not be possible for a water board to promote small schemes? The fact that there is a water board does not mean that it is always necessary to have one big scheme.

Mr. Baldwin: That is an ideal, but I fear that that is not happening when these boards are formed. It seems to me that they want to build a little empire and employ as many people as possible because the bigger their empire the bigger their salaries. I want to see our little local undertakings, which are running very efficiently at the present time, encouraged and helped by the Government rather than that we should go in for a tremendously expensive scheme in a county which is very sparsely populated, and where it will mean miles of pipes to take the water to various places.
I am reinforced in my view by what my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) said. He lives in the West Country and has carried out several schemes with his own water supplies and he, like myself, is anxious to have some information from my hon. Friend when he replies to the debate. We have our existing water supply and if a compulsory scheme comes in we shall not take part in it, because we prefer the water that we have rather than the stuff which they bring

us, which is rejuvenated. I had enough of rejuvenated water when I was in the the Army, and I do not want to drink any more of it.
I want to retain my own water supply. I want to know how those of us who have gone to the expense of getting our own water supply will be dealt with under the compulsory scheme for the county. Will it mean that we shall be compelled to contribute through rates or otherwise towards the county scheme although we are making no demand on or calling for any expense from the county?

Mr. Nabarro: Suppose that Herefordshire has a surplus of water, and Worcestershire, next door, requires some of that water? If there is a Herefordshire scheme on the one hand and a Worcestershire scheme on the other, is there to be any provision, under my hon. Friend's arrangement, for Herefordshire supplying Worcestershire compulsorily or otherwise?

Mr. Baldwin: Yes. If there is any compulsion necessary I should like to see it where there is a good spring in a district; if the owner of that spring is not co-operative he should be made to allow an undertaking to use that spring for the benefit of the community.

Mr. Nabarro: I have a small private reservoir which supplies my house and which gives me an excellent supply of water very cheaply. Is my hon. Friend suggesting, as a true Conservative, that someone should be allowed to come to me brandishing a big stick and demanding that my water supply should be given to someone else?

Mr. Baldwin: Very definitely no. I am suggesting that anyone who is using a spring should be compelled to allow that spring to be used by other people. My hon. Friend asked about a spring in one county being used in another. I can give him an instance in respect of the extreme boundary of my constituency which joins his, where there is a small brook bubbling out of the earth and flows into the River Teme, which is only a few hundred yards away. That lovely spring is not made use of. If it were harnessed it could supply a great area of land in Herefordshire and Worcestershire. County boundaries should not enter into consideration in respect of these water


schemes. The boundaries of Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Shropshire meet in one small town, and obviously if a scheme were to be forced on a county it would be very difficult to know how to work three different undertakings in the same town.
I think that where there are springs in the countryside that are running to waste and not being made use of steps should be taken voluntarily, if we can do so, to see that those springs are used for the benefit of the local people. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not wield the big stick. I hope that they will do what they can by way of voluntary amalgamations, if that is necessary, but I am afraid that if they use the big stick and come into my county, those people who are now advocating and wanting this county board will find that instead of the cost of a pint of beer being sufficient—as one of my hon. Friends has said—to give a household its water supply for a week, it will take the price of a gallon of beer to do so. Therefore, I hope that my county will take a very strong line with the Government if they insist on compelling them to undertake that extravagant scheme.
If the Government want to undertake any compulsory schemes they might do so in East Anglia, where I think that some of the people have to rely for their supply on soft water coming off the roofs. I think that that is a part of the country where a compulsory scheme might be tried, if one wants to try one at all. We do not want that in the West of England, where we have sufficient water. I cannot understand my hon. Friends from Wales, where there are so many good springs running to waste, wanting to come into a scheme where the water has to be pumped out of a river or brook. I suggest that if the small springs were harnessed they would give a better and a cheaper supply than if there were a compulsory board.
The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen mentioned the Birmingham water works. When I go to Birmingham or any of those big towns I never drink water. When I see the collecting area and what can get into the Elan Valley and Birmingham reservoirs I never feel very inclined to drink any of that water, and if there is to be any fall-out from

hydrogen bombs I shall be very glad that I am supplied with fresh water from God's earth rather than out of the river.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: I was interested in the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), who takes a dislike to the Birmingham municipal water supply undertaking, because the point I intended to make was that there could not be a better example of the efficient utilisation of water than is given by that undertaking, which is a complete vindication of municipal Socialism. This was a scheme pioneered in the heyday of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, in the early part of his career and before he had departed from those various schemes of municipalisation for which Birmingham is so famous. Birmingham's piped water is remarkably cheap.
The hon. Member for Leominster said that a piped water supply would be more costly than the existing arrangements in the countryside. Living in Birmingham, as well as representing part of it, I think that it would be almost impossible to supply water for the industries and the inhabitants of such a city more cheaply than we supply it at present. It is from the efficiency of cities like Birmingham that we should take our lesson when considering rural supplies and a national water scheme.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Is there any proposal in Birmingham to make the products of this "splendid Socialism" available to the people in the catchment area from which Birmingham derives its water, by giving them a reasonable amount of water?

Mr. Howell: I am happy to tell the hon. Member, who represents a Welsh constituency, that we do this. Along the whole length of our pipeline from the Elan and Claerwyn valleys to Birmingham we sell water at cost prices or without making a great profit to inhabitants. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not all along."] Well, practically along the whole length of the pipe line. We are happy to come to a suitable arrangement with local authorities. Not only that, but we sell water beyond our boundaries to places like Solihull, Coventry and Nuneaton. We are always ready and anxious to enter into an agreement.
I quite agree that water should be regulated. That is the basis of my remarks today. Anybody with experience of droughts will agree. The only experience I have is that a few years ago I was invited by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman), a Cornish constituency, to have a holiday there. I went, and found myself in the middle of a drought. It was then forcibly impressed upon me that for places like Cornwall the present system is chaotic. The reason we are having this debate, upon an Amendment by a Conservative hon. Member is that private enterprise water has utterly and miserably failed.

Mr. Whifelaw: The hon. Member was not here during my speech. Had he been here he would understand what proposals I put forward. As he was not, I hope that he will not attempt to misrepresent what I said

Mr. Howell: The hon. Member says, quite rightly, that I was not here, and as I was not here I cannot be accused of misrepresenting what I have not heard. I am only stating the elementary fact that we would not be discussing the seriousness of our water supply if present arrangements had been satisfactory. That is a very simple proposition which even the hon. Member ought to be able to understand.

Mr. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. Howell: I shall not give way, because I have promised to sit down very soon.

Mr. Whitelaw: Read the Amendment.

Mr. Howell: I quite understand what we are talking about and will make my speech in my own way. The fact that it does not satisfy Government supporters is personally satisfying to me.
We must have some system or method by which we can gauge the future water needs of industry and the population. In Birmingham, we have just opened, at great cost, the great Claerwyn dam which, at one stroke, doubled the amount of water available to us. Very soon after doing that we found, because of the rapid increase in the consumption of water, particularly by industry, that there were grave fears that the water supply would be insufficient to meet the demand in

years to come. That is happening throughout the country, as far as one can gather.
I support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle). No one, apart from the Minister, has the job of taking stock of the water position, of deciding where new townships will be put, with their new industries, and of looking at industrial trends with a view to deciding how much more water will be needed for industry in ten or fifteen years. That job is not being done.
I have listened to the last four speeches from the Government side of the House and in none of them was there a suggestion how we might tackle this job, apart from the remarks of the hon. Member who spoke as President of a Water Association. It has not even been remotely suggested that it is within the capacity of the water industry, as it is now, to solve it. I do not believe that the industry, either left as it is now or under the proposals in the White Paper, can solve it.
We must face the necessity of having some form of national water supply, not only for the rural areas but to meet the ever-increasing demands of industrial areas. Being a strong local-Government man I should like to see the task tackled in a local government manner. I would like to see large local authorities dealing with it on a regional basis and putting the necessary investment capital into it to produce a water supply. We need national planning machinery. Unless we have a national water association, similar to the Central Electricity Authority, working upon a scientific assessment of our future needs, we shall make very little progress. I would like a scientific survey, and then public water authorities to be grouped in large geographical units, to administer the scheme as successfully as we do in Birmingham.
Nobody who knows what has happened in the coal industry, and in the electricity industry in regard to rural electrification, will believe for one moment the jibe that some hon. Members were inclined to put out during this debate upon fuel and power. Anybody who sees with an open mind what is happening in electricity, and especially in regard to rural electrification under nationalisation, can only


come to the conclusion that it is most encouraging indeed and certainly would not have been done if electricity had been left under the old hotchpotch set-up.
In considering getting new and adequate supplies of water, we need also to consider a central authority to deal with the problem of waste. The problem of wasted water is not being tackled at all. Every day in this country we waste millions of gallons of water because of outdated designs of lavatory plumbing. How many times do 50 million people go to the lavatory and pull the chain three or four times before they can flush it properly? I estimate that we could make a saving of millions of pounds by proper designing and plumbing arrangements. That is a simple illustration and there must be many others of the waste of millions of gallons of water which we can ill afford. The Minister should direct his attention to that problem.
The question of river pollution is slightly outside the scope of this debate, but if we are to collect water and make it available, we also have to make available means for the drainage of that water to get rid of it. There, again, is a problem which should be tackled with greater vigour than is shown at present. The supply, the estimated demand, the disposal of water and its waste all add up to the need for having some national body, planning—and, I hope, responsible to Parliament—to meet the requirements.
I do not believe that hon. Members opposite, because of their basic philosophy, have the answers to this problem, but I believe that hon. Members on this side of the House have the answers. I hope that the next Labour Government, which will not be far away, will be able to implement those answers as part of their programme.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards: The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) has done the House a great service today by using his place in the Ballot to introduce a debate on this very important matter. The Amendment is couched in relatively limited administrative terms, which means that one can only make such incidental reference to legislative action as you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may think relevant. Behind the administrative terms

of this Amendment we have seen and recognised already in this debate that we are discussing a very important matter, which is serious if not critical. Anything that the Minister does to speed up any of the various schemes which are needed in urban or rural areas will get full support from this side of the House.
I express my personal pleasure that the Minister has bestirred himself on this question and spoken about it in the country. We are awaiting reports, I understand, from the two committees appointed in October, 1955, one on the growing demand for water and the other on the parallel problem of information on water resources. We are discussing what is primarily a public service. It is true that there are private companies, but the overwhelming majority of the water supplies of this country are in the hands of the local authorities. Those authorities vary from the enormously large authority, like the Metropolitan Water Board, to the relatively small authority.
When the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border referred to the essentially local character of water undertakings, I think he was using a phrase which cannot be generally applied. It can be applied in many cases, but when we get Welshmen in Liverpool seeking to get water from Welshmen in Wales we get into a difficult problem and the kind of questions raised by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) show that here we are dealing with a complicated matter on which, in my judgment, it is not safe to make generalisations. I leave the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with the critics on his own side of the House. Some of them, I thought, were quite wide of the mark, but doubtless he will have his own way of answering them.
I have been interested in water supplies for a very long time. I began my interest by serving on the Yorkshire Ouse Catchment Board, although there the interest was in getting rid of water through drainage.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Do we take it that my right hon. Friend is seeking to close the debate on the problem under discussion?

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend asks whether I am seeking to close the debate. That is not so. I merely thought that


this was a convenient time at which to make my statement, but I am not in a position to close the debate. So far as I am aware, Standing Orders would not permit of me to close the debate in any way.

Mr. Slater: On a point of order. Can we know whether this is the closing of the debate, whether it is to end at seven o'clock, in view of the fact that other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): This debate finishes at seven o'clock because there is a Private Bill put down for consideration at that time. Whether the debate on the Private Bill will run to ten o'clock I do not know, but I gather that many hon. Members want to speak in that debate and, therefore, this debate will virtually end at seven o'clock.

Mr. Edwards: I was saying that I have been interested in this matter for some years. Ten years ago I was occupying the position of the Parliamentary Secretary and was very much involved in this question. I think I can say that at that time I was passionately devoted to water. It interested me to find that almost all the hon. Members—not all, but nearly everyone—who have spoken so far were not in this House in those days when, for example, we debated the 1948 Water Bill. I was at the Ministry of Health, which then had this responsibility and I was aware of three major problems of water supply which had to be disposed of before the water supplies of England and Wales could be said to be properly efficient.
First, we needed a very large programme of new works in the urban areas. We needed that because of the arrears caused by the war and because we wanted to meet the needs of new housing estates, new towns, and so on. We needed it for industrial expansion and because we wanted higher standards of hygiene. If my memory serves me corectly, in 1948 or 1949 we estimated that those works would cost at least about £80 million. My hunch is that, allowing for the eroding influences of inflation, we probably still need works of that order.
The second thing we wanted was provision of piped supplies in rural areas for domestic and agricultural uses. In those days we estimated that that programme

would cost not far short of £50 million. The third problem was what was called rationalisation of the existing local administrative units. I believe I can say today that those are still the three major problems. Although time has passed, and it is nine or ten years since those estimates were made, we are still faced with essentially the same problems. If the Parliamentary Secretary will not accept that nationalisation is the right way of handling the matter, I hope that I shall carry him with me when I say that rationalisation is certainly essential. The hon. Member who opened the debate told us that there were more than 1,000 statutory water undertakers. He told us that 120 of those undertakers supply three-quarters of the population.
I would point out that the need for rationalisation is by no means limited to the large number of small undertakings supplying 25 per cent, of the population. The great majority of undertakings, both large and small, operate over areas which have not been planned, but have been a piecemeal growth and have not been determined in any way by the considerations which we now believe ought to govern modern systems of water supply. After all, what do we want? I submit that what we seek in a water undertaking is, first, an organisation capable of providing a wholesome and abundant supply of water for all purposes at all times. Secondly, we want an undertaking which will have a revenue resulting from reasonable charges to householders, trade, industry and other users which will cover its outgoings but will not turn the undertaking into a profit-making concern.
Thirdly, we want to be sure that the existing resources will be fully used before new sources are developed, that additional supplies will be obtained at reasonable costs when needed, and that new and existing sources will be used to serve all the areas which are capable, in the light of the best engineering advice, of being economically served by them. Also, sources of water should not, through ignorance or through any false sense of parochialism, be reserved for the areas of the undertakings which develop the sources.
Finally, we want to be sure that an undertaking has competent administrative, technical, financial and other staff. It is my view that very few of the existing


undertakings satisfy all those criteria. Many of them satisfy some of the criteria, but having regard to the fact that there are 1,000 undertakings, I feel that very few of them would satisfy all those criteria.
The need for supplies is most acute in rural areas. One of my hon. Friends pointed out that the undertakers in rural areas are nearly always the rural district councils. Even if the rural areas are within the limits of supply of larger undertakings, the rural district councils will usually be responsible for ensuring that supplies are afforded. This is partly because the expenditure is unremunerative and a sufficient income has to be guaranteed by them.
I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary would not agree with me that all our experience goes to show that the difficulties of supplying rural areas under the present system are well nigh insurmountable. There are very few rural district councils which have permanent staff able to design the schemes which are needed. The result is that schemes have to be designed, often at considerable expense, by the relatively few consulting engineers, who are overburdened by the work, for there is nothing like enough of them.
The boundaries of rural districts bear no relation to water supply areas, and, indeed, the whole business of negotiation which is required is of the sort to tax rural district councils, which, in some cases, may still be relying on part-time officials. Indeed, our experience of the negotiation of joint schemes bears out the view that if one embarks on a scheme one has in most cases to be prepared for two or three years' work before one can see it through.
Our experience shows that with the best will in the world rural district councils—I am not denying that, for the most part, rural district councils are very willing—are not strong enough to cope with the difficult and expensive business of rural water supplies. I believe that we shall have to have a radical change in responsibilities if what I believe the present Government desire—a rehabilitated countryside—is not to be prejudiced by lack of progress in the supply of water. I take the view that it is imperative that the State should take much more direct action in this matter.
If we turn to urban areas, the situation is still difficult, even if somewhat different. Various surveys which have been made give abundant proof of the need for widespread amalgamations of undertakings supplying urban areas. In some cases, it is clear that one has to seek new sources. Large new sources in the case of the big urban concentrations have to be developed far afield. These sources have to be properly planned in order to serve large parts of the country.
When I spoke some years ago at a great celebration of the British Waterworks' Association, where I had the honour of proposing the toast of the Association, I said that in my own part of the country, the West Riding of Yorkshire, a map of the trunk mains would put any spider to shame. That was true. What is a difficult problem in rural areas becomes even more difficult in urban areas, because of the complicated character of the supply system.
It may be said that the machinery of the Water Act, using compulsion if necessary, will enable the Minister to effect any desirable amalgamations of undertakings. It is true that the Act gives the Minister very wide powers, but, all the same, I should have thought that our experience over the last twelve years would lead us to suppose that the machinery that we have is not adequate, that the processes are far too long and too cumbersome, and that there are far too many opportunities for obstruction by authorities actuated by very many different motives.
What happens? The procedure under the present system means a long job and scores, if not hundreds, of local inquiries and many disputed orders. It means a profitable source of income for certain persons who have to handle these matters and give expert evidence. I cannot see the the end of the process if the Minister is to rely solely on his present powers.
There are, of course, very many objections to the merger of undertakings, and I cannot believe that under the present Water Act procedure we can carry through the amalgamations which are badly needed in the big areas, such as greater London, the Midlands, and the industrial regions of Lancashire, Yorkshire and the North-East. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am not suggesting for one minute that the Act has failed. It


provides a convenient and inexpensive medium for undertakings to obtain new powers which were previously obtainable only by means of Private Bills and Provisional Orders. The existence of the main Act, modified by the 1948 Act, has assisted the Government in its efforts to review the country's water supplies in detail.
Nevertheless, I believe that there must be greater State participation. As I said just now, I should be out of order if I made any more than incidental reference to legislation, but what do we want done? We want a great new programme of work carried out to meet the crying needs of urban communities and to bring piped water supplies to rural areas. If we are to have such schemes carried out on a well-planned basis, then they must be so planned as to serve common needs and not merely the needs of an individual undertaking.
It is clear that in many cases water will have to be brought from distant sources. I should have thought that it followed from that that the whole scheme must be so designed as to serve the interests not only of those who are bringing the water but of other areas as well. If, as I believe to be true, our existing administrative areas are the results of a slow and unplanned development of water supplies for more than a century, and if I am right in supposing that our present areas are unsuited to modern conditions, then it follows that we must try to evolve ways and means of securing planning on a wider basis which will give us areas commensurate with our present needs and authorities able to afford competent staff and generally to do what is required.
The decision when to construct large works in advance of requirements is not at present an easy one for an authority to take, and I have noticed a tendency for undertakings to postpone that decision as long as possible. I guess, therefore, that here we really have to see a greater amount of State participation than has hitherto been envisaged. I would not today, Mr. Speaker, wish, nor would I be in order, to elaborate the kind of arrangements that I would think right.
Under the 1945 Water Act, the Minister has the duty imposed on him
… to promote the conservation and proper use of water resources and the provision of

water supplies in England and Wales and to secure the effective execution by water undertakers, under his control and direction, of a national policy relating to water.
I would ask some hon. Members who have spoken to recognise that that is the duty that Parliament has imposed on the Minister. I trust that they will particularly note the phrase:
… the effective execution by water undertakers, under his "—
that is, the Minister's—
 control and direction, of a national policy relating to water.
My feeling is that the Minister's powers are not really adequate for the duties imposed on him. By all means let us encourage him and support him in the use of all the powers he has, but I suggest that we should also ask him to consider whether it is not necessary for him to seek other powers as well.
The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, from what, I thought, was a splendid piece of analysis, did not draw the right conclusions. After all the things that he told us were wrong with the water supplies of the country and the undertakings, to come to the conclusion that what was needed was a gradual and steady progress did not seem to me to match the situation that he had described.
The truth is that every advance in public health has been impeded by the cry of those who say "All carrot and no stick". If we are to wait for this gradual and steady progress, some villages must meanwhile remain in mediaeval conditions, farm and other rural improvements are impeded, and industrial development is held up. That is serious from the point of view of the public health and of our economy. We must press on, and if the Minister takes that view we shall certainly support him in every way we can.
I live in London; that is to say, I normally have all the water that I need for my own purposes, or even for the needs of my garden. But from time to time I spend holidays in a small village in North Wales, where I live in a small cottage. I am lucky, because the spring is only about 50 yards away. The cottage overlooks the spring, and I see people coming with their buckets, or the farmers coming with their water carts. If I felt at all disposed to be complacent about this subject, the memory of that kind of spectacle would urge me to a more


radical view, and to the view that I have developed just now.
This problem is not only an administrative one. It is, perhaps, not primarily an administrative one. I believe that, above all, it is an economic problem; that is to say, it is concerned with what we do with our national resources. Whatever we do about the administration, we shall need to increase the resources of capital and labour that we give to this vital public service.

6.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): We have had an interesting and, I should have thought by common consent, a most instructive debate on the subject of water. I have very much enjoyed the contribution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards)—as, indeed, I always do. He always speaks temperately and with great knowledge on subjects of this kind. I should also like to add to the congratulations of the right hon. Gentleman, my own to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), who was good enough to initiate this debate. Perhaps I might link with that, congratulations also to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), who made quite a fascinating and highly practical speech.
As one might have expected, this topic has not proved to be a bitterly controversial one, although some of my hon. Friends tell me that it has provoked some controversy in another place in recent times. I congratulate the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) on his references to Radnor and Montgomery and to the efforts of certain people of the city from which I come to impose their plans on his countrymen in Wales—I congratulate him on not being ruled out of order.
The Amendment welcomes the regrouping of water undertakings, and I am relieved to know that most of the speeches this afternoon have, in a broad sense, been in general support of the Amendment. It is fair to say that some of the speeches, certainly of those made by my hon. Friends, should be helpful in influencing some of the more hesitant local authorities to do what my right

hon. Friend would like them to do at the present time.
It is natural that on these occasions we should be criticised by some hon. Members for not having gone far enough. That applies, in particular, to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. And, of course, it is natural, also, that from this side we should be criticised for having gone too far. I do not wish to import into this debate any element of political controversy, because we have been singularly free from it, but in the post-war years the Labour Party has been consistently critical of the organisation of the water industry.
"Challenge to Britain" which was, I think, published in 1953, alleged that water authorities had grown up haphazardly, that many areas were badly served, and that there was a great deal of overlapping and waste throughout the country. At that time, and more recently in "Forward with Labour", in 1955, the party opposite referred to the need for public ownership. If I may say so without in any sense giving offence to hon. Members opposite, the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) did well to point out to the House that already 87 per cent, of the water industry is publicly owned, and that, therefore, to a large extent the issue of nationalisation is beside the point.
The hon. Member did well to point out that what we are really debating now is whether we need more or less planning of water organisation. It is clear that the Coalition White Paper, published, as the right hon. Gentleman said —

Mr. David Jones: Before the Parliamentary Secretary leaves that point, will he do me the honour of reading the evidence given during the 23 days in which the Kent Water Bill was before a Committee of this House? What is said in "Challenge to Britain" is amply supported by that evidence.

Mr. Bevins: I am not challenging what is said there. I am pointing out that whatever may have been said, on both sides, from the point of view of political doctrine, it is the fact that, as the hon. Member for Anglesey pointed out, the bulk of the industry is already in public ownership, and that the real issue that we are debating is whether the planning that exists, and the powers possessed by my


right hon. Friend are adequate to cope with the situation.
As I was saying, the Coalition White Paper was published in 1944. It advocated regrouping and, of course, it formed the basis of the Water Act of 1945, and was supported by the leaders of both political parties. It seems to me that there are only three conceivable alternative policies in this field. The first is outright nationalisation, which has not been very fervently advocated this afternoon. The second is regrouping of some sort, and the third is to leave matters substantially as they are. Whatever one may think about the merits or otherwise of these alternatives, I am sure that the whole House agrees with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the object of policy should be to make sure that the. country has adequate supplies of good water both now and in the foreseeable future at as reasonable a price as possible.
It is true, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and other hon. Members, that our water industry as a whole has a record which is unrivalled throughout the civilised world. We ought to recognise that and we ought to give credit to all those who are active in the industry for that achievement. It is the case that nineteen out of every twenty people in England and Wales enjoy a good supply of piped water with a high standard of purity, and they get it at a reasonable cost—so reasonable, as has been said this afternoon, that a ton of drinking water costs no more than half a pint of beer or a pint and a half of another beverage to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is so partial.
May I say a word about the structure of this industry? I confirm what has been said in this debate, that we have about 100 undertakings, all of them efficient, and some very efficient, which supply more Chan half of our total population. Where necessary, we want these larger undertakings, which on the whole are competent and do a good job of work, to co-operate with the smaller undertakings so as to bring the whole country's supply under the administration of competent units.
As has been said repeatedly today, the weakness of the industry lies in the

fact that the rest of our population— rather less than one-half—is provided for by about 900 separate undertakings none of which supplies more than 50,000 people; about 600 supply fewer than 20,000 people, and as many as 400 of them supply fewer than 10,000.
As the right hon. Gentleman has very rightly said, this leads to certain very obvious disadvantages, because so long as there are so many units working in isolation it is quite impossible to use our water resources to the best advantage. This naturally leads, in some parts of the country, to undertakers in adjoining areas embarking on the preparation of separate schemes which duplicate each other and are liable to lead to wasteful expenditure. As we should expect, many of our people who are still without piped water in areas like Anglesey, Mid-Wales and elsewhere, live in the very areas for which these small undertakings are responsible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes referred to the difficulties which these small undertakings very naturally have in securing the services of highly trained technical staff—

Mr. C. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that for the last twelve years Anglesey has had a county water scheme which was brought about by a Private Act of Parliament, and that piped water has now been brought to the majority of the homes in the county? Remarkable progress has been made.

Mr. Bevins: I did not mean to imply that all the people in Anglesey are without piped water, but there are a few, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
I was saying that many of these smaller local authorities are not able, for financial reasons, to recruit the right technical men for the job. Very often one finds that a surveyor is responsible not only for water, for which he is not as well qualified as he might be, but perhaps for a host of other services as well. Although I know quite a number of these men in local government, and I assure the House that I have the very highest regard for their industry and their desire to do a good job in the public service, I cannot help feeling that many of these small local authorities are faced with very great difficulties.
Very few of them, for example, are in a position to have any accurate knowledge of the water resources on which they are drawing. They should obviously be able to cope with problems of pollution and, of course, with the problem of wastage by ensuring that mains, pipes and water fittings are in a proper condition.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Would the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that in Cornwall, and particularly in West Cornwall, rural and urban authorities have been prevented from carrying out very good schemes because the De Lank scheme which the officers of his Ministry tried to foist upon the county council delayed the matter for five, six or more years?

Mr. Bevins: That may or may not be the case. I shall be willing to have a talk with the hon. Gentleman about it afterwards.
Moreover, we have to recognise that the demands for water are increasing greatly all the time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) rightly said, as the value of intensified irrigation in farming becomes more widely recognised, the demands for water will be increased. There have been references to the increased demands by industries such as electricity, chemicals and nuclear power, all of which are bound to make vast demands on our water supplies in the future.
All these considerations taken together emphasise the need for regrouping, either by the creation of joint boards or by amalgamations or by take-overs, in such a way as to ensure that all water undertakings possess the resources, both technical and financial, to enable them to do their work adequately.
Perhaps at this point, before I come to the more contentious questions which have been raised in this debate, I should deal with one or two of the detailed points which have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border deplored the fact that capital expenditure in the water industry was only about £20 million a year at present. That is more or less an accurate figure, which I accept. But we have to bear in mind that if we go back to the first five post-war years, the figure during that period was still lower, even if we consider the changes

in the value of money. We should like to see more capital invested in the water industry, and I am perfectly sure that my right hon. Friend is very much alive to that consideration and will bear it constantly in mind.
The hon. Member for Merioneth referred specially to the problems of water in Mid-Wales. My right hon. Friend has visited Mid-Wales; in fact, he has visited all of Wales—north, middle and south-since his appointment as Minister for Welsh Affairs. I am sure that that is a topic in which he will take a continual interest.
I was rather surprised by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle). I am sorry that he is not now in his place. As I understood his opening remarks, he was arguing that it was wrong to import into this debate any contribution of a doctrinaire kind. Then he went on to say that the day of the private water company was over and that the future lay in the hands of the public authorities.

Mr. D. Howell: That is not doctrinaire: it is a fact.

Mr. Bevins: That is precisely the point I am coming to—whether it is doctrinaire or not. I should like to point out that we on this side of the House, and certainly my right hon. Friend, have no doctrinaire approach to this subject whatever. We still take the view that there may well be room both for the public authority and the private water company, and, indeed, there is recent support for that view.
In the County of Somerset quite recently, there has been a case of a local authority which has been supplying more than 90 per cent, of the inhabitants with piped water, which has received an offer from a private water company of a most generous character, which the local authority has accepted. The undertaking has been taken over, or at least it is about to be taken over, by this private water company, and the local authority is being paid a lump sum for its assets. It is also being given guarantees that certain works which are necessary in its area will go on. It will also receive concessionary rates for water during the next few years. I give that to the House simply as an example that, after all, the day of the private water


company may not be finished, as was alleged by the hon. Member.
I was also just a little surprised at what was said by the hon. Member for All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) and his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen, because it was said by another hon. Member opposite, before they spoke, that the Tory Party was a hundred years behind the times. The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen said he thought that the time had come when the Government should more actively pursue their water policy, and I understood him to say that my right hon. Friend should have his engineering inspectors visiting different parts of the country to carry out surveys to ascertain the extent and the value of water supplies, and then make recommendations to the areas concerned.
Of course, that is precisely the present policy of Her Majesty's Government, and the right hon. Gentleman knows even better than I do that that policy has been in progress for quite a long time. Therefore, I would say to hon. Members opposite—and I am not imputing this against all hon. Members opposite, but one or two have rather fallen into the trap of deceiving themselves into believing that Her Majesty's Government have no sense of planning for the water industry —that that is manifestly untrue.
The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen also referred to the question of redundancy following upon a policy of regrouping. While it is by no means assured that redundancy will arise, my right hon. Friend is quite prepared to look at that matter sympathetically, and we shall get in touch with the hon. Gentleman, who has a special interest in this matter, at a later date. Might I also say to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. J. Harrison) that this very vexed problem of detergents and their effect on rivers, sewage, and above all on the angling community, is exercising the minds of a committee at the moment, and we are hoping that we may be able to do something effective about it.
Perhaps I may now turn to some of the broader objections which are made on principle to this policy of regrouping, most of which have been expressed from this side of the House. It is said that the principles behind our water policy, which, quite clearly, would relieve some

of the smaller local authorities of this function, are at variance with the principles which lie behind my right hon. Friend's plans for local government reform. It has been argued in certain quarters that further amalgamations should be postponed until the new pattern of local government is known.
That argument presupposes that water supply is a major function of local government at the present time, but, of course, the truth is that more than one-third of the local authorities in England and Wales are not water undertakers at all. We have 83 county boroughs, 29 of which are not water undertakers. We have 316 boroughs, and of those 141 are not water undertakers, and the same is broadly true of the urban district councils. Indeed, it is true to say that about half of our population is supplied not by individual local authorities which they themselves elect, but by joint water boards of local authorities or by water companies. As we know, water supplies have never coincided at any time with the boundaries of local government.
I recognise, as, indeed, did my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, that many of the smaller local authorities are reluctant to lose any of their existing functions, and some of them are, quite naturally perhaps, a little suspicious of the regrouping policy. I should like to emphasise that we have no intention of silencing the voices of these smaller local authorities, because my right hon. Friend is looking mainly to the setting up of joint boards of local authorities, so that the connection of these small local authorities with a joint board may be maintained. Already in the country there are, I believe, 43 joint boards, which on the whole work very efficiently, and which have representation from the various local authorities which they serve.
It is also said that certain of the smaller local authorities are efficient, and therefore might perhaps well be left alone, and that we are indulging in this policy of amalgamation simply for the sake of amalgamation. I should like quite categorically to refute that point of view. There is nothing whatever that is doctrinaire in the policy of my right hon. Friend, and I myself am certainly not wedded to the belief that size and efficiency always go together. Industries vary and conditions vary, but here in the


case of water, my right hon. Friend is convinced that in this particular industry it is difficult to achieve efficient working unless the units of operation are large enough to do the job.
Again, it is argued—and I recognise the force of this argument—that in certain parts of the country some of the urban authorities might suffer financially from amalgamation with their poorer rural neighbours. I think that was an argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) and another hon. Member on this side of the House, and I concede that, to some extent, there may be some substance in this argument. I feel, however, that we ought to bear in mind that many of these urban areas rely to some extent for their prosperity on their rural areas; but when charges in an urban area are likely to rise as a result of amalgamation it is intended by my right hon. Friend that in suitable cases the application of differential charges during the transitional period shall be made.
I should now like to say a brief word on the question of compulsory amalgamation.

Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil): Will the hon. Gentleman please give some encouragement to those very poor rural areas which have been referred to by two of my Welsh colleagues, which are too poor to engage as water undertakers themselves or jointly with other areas, but from whose immediate neighbourhood water is now being taken to supply big corporations in other parts of the country? Have the Government any proposal or plan to meet those really tragic cases?

Mr. Bevins: As I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, that is a rather special problem. It certainly is not covered by what I have said so far in this debate. I assure him that it is being looked at most carefully in the Ministry at present and perhaps I may be able, at a later date, to communicate something of interest to those hon. Welsh Members who are interested in this particular problem.
On the subject of compulsory amalgamations, divergent views, very naturally, have been expressed, if not by hon. Gentlemen opposite, certainly by my hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend has made it plain that he prefers to see this process

of regrouping carried through on a voluntary basis by the undertakers themselves, and that, although he has compulsory powers under the 1945 Act, it is his hope that he will need to invoke those powers only when regrouping is desirable and cannot be achieved by any other method. That, I think, would accord with the general sentiment and feeling of the House.
What has been done so far? There have been two draft compulsory Orders since the last circular was issued in September last year, for the setting up of a joint water board in Herefordshire and another in North Lincolnshire. In both cases, public inquiries have been held, and my right hon. Friend will shortly give his decisions. But I would stress that these are exceptional cases, and it is certainly the preference of my right hon. Friend that amalgamations and regrouping should, so far as possible, proceed in a voluntary basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, I think it was, asked whether, in the case of the regrouping which is in progress in his part of the country, possibly on a compulsory basis, the smaller local authorities would be accorded representation on the new boards. I am not in a position to give him an unequivocal answer today, but as a general rule—it is a general rule, which does not apply all the time—representation on these boards is arranged on the basis of the rateable values of the constituents which form the joint boards. Therefore, while there might be representation from this or that individual authority, there might be one representative from two small local authorities.

Mr. Mathew: I take it that my hon. Friend has been referring to compulsory powers under Section 9. Section 12 deals with agreements between authorities or suppliers for bulk supply, and I did ask him to let the House know whether that has now been abandoned, because it was indicated in Circular 52/56 that the Minister did not favour that form of agreement. Would my hon. Friend say why that has been abandoned? It seems to be a stronger line than was indicated by the Act.

Mr. Bevins: I cannot give my hon. Friend a detailed answer. What is in the last circular still stands. Of course, the substance of it, apart from the particular point my hon. Friend mentions, is


that my right hon. Friend wishes the voluntary regrouping to continue at as great a pace as possible, though, of course, he may, in the last resort, use certain powers under Section 9.
As the House knows, our latest circular was issued as recently as September, 1956. There as a general realisation amongst water undertakers that this is becoming an urgent matter. There has been a considerable number of agreements in principle already between water undertakers and in several hundreds of other cases discussions are proceeding. Although he would like to see the pace of regrouping accelerated still further, my right hon. Friend is not dissatisfied with the progress being made, and we shall certainly keep it under continuous review, in the hope that we shall be able to achieve a satisfactory solution to our problems in the not too distant future.
If local authorities or water undertakers want the advice or help either of the officials of my right hon. Friend's Ministry or of the British Waterworks' Association, advice and help from those two sources, I am quite sure, will be very readily forthcoming, as, indeed, it has been during recent times.
I believe that this debate has been valuable in showing, first, that there is less between the two sides of the House on this subject than is commonly supposed, and, secondly, that, in the broad sense, the House endorses the general water policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Whitelaw: I feel, and I hope that it will be generally agreed, that we have had a valuable debate on an important subject. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed:—

UNIVERSITIES (INQUIRY)

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Even those of us not well versed in the subject of water supply will have listened with very great interest to the debate which has just concluded. I now invite the House to turn its attention from the ordinary spring and the supply of water to the

Pierian Spring and the supply of learning from our universities.
Anyone who raises the subject of our universities in this House must approach it with great care and respect, because our universities, for a long time now, have rightly prided themselves on the fact that they enjoy academic freedom, both freedom from being turned into instruments of political or social propaganda and freedom to arrange their own academic affairs in the manner which seems to them, in the light of experience and the needs of the community, to be best. It has not always been so.
In earlier centuries, Cavalier and Roundhead, Hanoverian and Jacobite, Whig and Tory, have sought to turn the universities into instruments of propaganda. It was, indeed, at one time in the eighteenth century, after the Hanoverian succession, the practice to require students at Oxford and Cambridge to take an oath of allegiance to the reigning dynasty and a further oath declaring that they believed the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. The professors at Oxford and Cambridge, being Jacobites almost to a man and disloyal to the Hanoverian dynasty, did not administer the oath of loyalty to the students, saying that persons so young could not understand the nature of such an oath; although, curiously enough, they continued to administer to them the oath of belief in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.
Those days, when universities were regarded as seats of power to be seized by the ruling group, are happily gone. But it is interesting to notice that, after those days were over and our politics had taken a more civilised and reasonable turn and we had begun to appreciate the importance of academic freedom, no sooner had universities escaped from the domination of the Government than it was shown that they were fully prepared to respond to the needs of the community. The nineteenth century witnessed the university system of this country expanding in size and varying greatly in quality. New universities began to spring up. New branches of learning were studied at university level. All this was in response to the needs of a community becoming increasingly industrialised. We notice the growth —

It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by the direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: It is not my intention to delay the Second Reading of the Bill unduly, because I know that hon. Members wish to debate at length the Motion for an Instruction which is to follow. The point which I wish to raise is, however, a specific one and can be discussed only on Second Reading and not on the Instruction.
For some years, hon. Members of this House in whose constituencies the London County Council has set up housing estates have been worried by the policy of the London County Council in refusing to look after the children of existing L.C.C. tenants and throwing the onus of housing the children upon the local authority in whose area the housing estate is established.
We recognise, of course, that the housing problems of the London County Council are exceptional and that they must be one of the Council's major worries. We recognise, also, that over the years the London County Council has done an extraordinarily fine job in housing many hundreds of thousands of people in the area for which it is responsible. Having said that, however, I submit that the L.C.C. has no right to solve its problem, or to attempt to do so, at the expense of other local authorities. That is precisely what happens in the existing situation.
The Borough of Ilford is not as seriously affected as is the adjacent Borough of Dagenham, in which, I believe, 50 or 60 per cent, of the entire houses in the borough are under the control of the London County Council. The problem in Ilford is, however, bad enough. Our land is now all used up and we still have a very long waiting list. So that on the basis of our existing waiting list, plus

the accommodation which is available, we have no possibility of solving the housing difficulties of a large number of people already living in difficult conditions within the town.
Within Ilford, we have two London County Council housing estates: the Becontree estate, which comprises 2,610 houses, and the now nearly-built Hainault estate, which at present has 474 houses, making a total of 3,084 houses in the borough where we have, overall, about 44,000 houses. We have on our waiting list about 2,000 applicants for whom no accommodation is available. After having fulfilled our existing commitments for slum clearance, temporary bungalows and requisitioned property, we shall have available only about 330 dwellings to satisfy the 1,879 people on the waiting list.
We have from the London County Council houses alone a waiting list of 153, which grows every month. We have to try to house those 153 and as fast as they are housed the London County Council then puts more people into the accommodation which they have vacated. Therefore, it becomes absolutely impossible for the Borough of Ilford—or, indeed, any other borough in which a London County Council housing estate is established—to look after its own people first.
What we think should happen is something on these lines. First, after a given period, which can be determined by negotiation—say, seven, fourteen or even twenty years after the establishment of a housing estate—provision should be made for the local authority to have the power to acquire that housing estate and to assume all the financial obligations of administration. [An HON. MEMBER: "To take it over?"] I used the word "acquire". That means to buy or in some other way to acquire it by a proper financial arrangement.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: At present-day values?

Mr. Cooper: The value would be determined according to the time when the property was taken over. This would not be something which would be dealt with simply in 1957. I am suggesting something which will go on over many years. I assume that the London County Council will for a long time be seeking to acquire land in various parts of Greater


London or in the counties around. Therefore, this problem is a continuing one. I am dealing not only with the estates which now exist, but with those which are to come.
Secondly, I suggest that when a new estate is completed, the local authority should by negotiation with the L.C.C. have the right to control a proportion—I do not at this juncture attempt to give any figure—of the lettings of the estate. It could be possible that in such negotiations a financial adjustment could be made between the two authorities. That seems to me to be an equitable and fair method in the interests of the receiving authority.
I therefore conclude in the way I began. I recognise that the London County Council has very severe housing difficulties, but I submit that the L.C.C. is not entitled to solve these problems at the expense of other local authorities.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I have no complaint about the way in which the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) has raised this matter. No one will dispute that Ilford, like most other large towns, has a tremendous housing problem, but it is somewhat unreasonable to expect that a vigorous and live housing authority like the London County Council, which because of its difficulties is given powers quite deliberately by Parliament to build outside the area of its county, should then be asked to hand over those powers to the local authority in whose area the houses might happen to be. Some estates present additional difficulty because they cover more than one local authority area. How we would solve the political administration difficulties, I do not quite know.
The fact is that it is the London ratepayers who have paid for the building of these houses. They have spent many millions of pounds on them. To my knowledge, some forty or fifty years have been spent in building up these housing estates in and around London. In spite of that work, however, the waiting list of the County of London makes the long list in Ilford pale into insignificance. In London there are about 55,000 or more urgent cases with no possibility of being rehoused in the next three or four years. indeed, so difficult has the position become that all the people on the waiting

list have been informed that the L.C.C, with all its vast responsibilities for rehousing thousands of people from the slum houses which are now being pulled down, will not be able to house more than, at the outside, 2,000 people from the general waiting list. The rest have no hope at all.

Mr. E. Partridge: Why did the London County Council pull down the prefabs on Wandsworth Common?

Mr. Gibson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not encourage me to say too much about that. I opposed pulling down the prefab buildings on the Common, but the Minister of Housing and Local Government insisted that they should be demolished.

Mr. Partridge: Oh, no.

Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: Ask him.

Mr. Gibson: The question is whether it is reasonable that some of the houses built by London County Council should be handed over to places like Ilford, in view of the tremendous housing demand which exists in London. I have all the sympathy in the world with the people in Ilford who want houses and cannot get them, but I think even the hon. Member for Ilford, South will admit that London's claim to houses is very much greater than Ilford's, and that until the London County Council has been able to solve its housing problem it ought not to let go any one of its houses.
The County Council, however, does not say that that is the end of the matter. There was a time when it permitted the sons and daughters of its tenants to have prior claims on empty houses on its estates. That has been altered only because of the enormous difficulty that the County Council is having in housing the people already on its waiting list. It has not, however, refused other applications. It has made arrangements whereby a proportion of the vacancies which occur on its estates are allocated to people on the housing lists of other local authorities. If the hon. Member for Ilford, South would care to know them, I will give him the numbers allocated this year. It cannot be said that the County Council is indifferent to the housing problems of Ilford or of any other borough.
The people whom the hon. Member should complain about are the people who sit on the Government Front Bench. The hon. Member talked about the probability that the London County Council would build more estates outside London, but it has been refused the opportunity of buying additional sites. That occurred during the latter part of my own chairmanship of the London County Council's Housing Committee. For reasons which were regarded as good reasons, I suppose, the county was not given permission to buy new sites on which it could rehouse some people, and at the moment it does not look as though those people will be rehoused in the next ten or twenty years.
There are one or two ideas which, I hope, will develop into practicalities, but at the moment all the houses being built on its out-county estates, and being built, I emphasise, with permission, are nearing completion, and most of them have been completed. The County Council has a long list of applicants waiting for houses, and they are not only people who want better accommodation than that in which they are living at present, but people whose housing conditions are chronically bad, who are suffering from chronic overcrowding or chronic bad health. Owing to the pressure on the County Council to build as many houses as it can as part of slum clearance proposals, and as it is statutorily bound to rehouse its people, it cannot find enough houses for the people at present on its waiting list.
I hope, therefore, that the people of Ilford will recognise that the County Council has an even bigger difficulty to face than they have, and that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will take it from me that we have a known problem ourselves, and that while we also have the greatest sympathy with the Ilford people we think that the needs of London at the moment, and for the next few years, will be greater than the needs of any other part of the country. The London County Council will have to keep what houses it has got and get as many more houses as it possibly can if it is ever to solve the housing problem in London.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: As my constituency contains approximately one-third of the houses in the Becontree

area, which we are now discussing, I think that it is up to me to say a word or two. Perhaps, I am in a better position than the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) to speak about this matter, since the Borough of Barking, which I have the honour to represent, has, like the Borough of Dagenham next to it, made repeated representations to the London County Council that something should be done, whereas, as far as I know, the Borough of Ilford has not so far made any application to the London County Council, nor, as far as I know, have any of the other municipalities in whose areas are situated the other 20 out-county housing estates of the L.C.C.
Nevertheless, I agree that there is much in what the hon. Member for Ilford, South has said. It is desirable that all municipal housing in a borough should be owned by that borough. It is easier for local government, and if it be possible it is desirable that negotiations should be carried out to see how far that can be made practicable.
After all, London is in a very difficult position. When, in a primitive village, the population increases and more houses are needed, if the money is available more houses may be built. But London is a very big "village," and has to house its increasing population outside London. When London embarks on housing and slum clearance schemes it needs to move the denizens temporarily outside the county. Not only that, but because of the decreased density that is desirable many of the population cannot be rehoused in the area, which means that more houses are necessary outside the county, too.
I would stress the fact that it is desirable, if local communities are to be formed and to continue to exist, that the children of the people in the Becontree area should be able to settle there. There is great difficulty at the present time, as we find at Barking.
However, it is not only lack of housing accommodation which prevents the young people from remaining on the Becontree estate. There are other considerations. Many go to Avaley and Basildon because they can get not only work but houses there as well, and the houses depend on getting work. This is a real problem, and I feel that we should be grateful to the hon. Member for Ilford, South for


having raised it. I think that the suggestion which he made should be given careful consideration, and that negotiations should be carried out, as, indeed, they have been and are being carried out, between the areas affected and the London County Council. I hope that if that is done a solution equitable to all the parties concerned will come to light.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: The House might well compliment the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) on the ingenuity he has displayed in bringing this controversy on to the Floor of the House, but it is rather unfortunate that the hon. Member has been unable to devise any way other than to put on the Order Paper a Motion which would bring about a result exactly opposite to the one that he desires.

Mr. Cooper: I have no Motion before the House. This is a debate on Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) that the Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time ". We cannot discuss the Instruction on the Order Paper until the Bill has been read a Second time.

Mr. Parkin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but the issue is surely that the hon. Member for Ilford, South has brought this matter to the attention of the House in order to air a difficulty which my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) has just agreed is a real one.
It would be unfortunate if the debate led to criticism, or one were recommended not to give the Bill a Second Reading when this Measure is essential to the day-to-day work of the London County Council. The debate has called attention to the fact that the financial administration of the London County Council is very efficient indeed. [Laughter.] I think that it is sometimes fashionable to laugh at these very large organisations, as though they were not very particular about the details of their administration and always asked for more money than they need. When one examines the working balance of London County Council it may seem to be a great deal of money, but to have only two weeks' outgoings in hand means that there must be a very highly skilled body of officials. These are the officials who do

the day-to-day work and whose work would be made impossible if the Bill were not given a Second Reading.
Therefore, the general attack on the Bill must surely mean that the London County Council might be placed in a position where it would have to look at some of the quite small provisions in the Bill. I am interested, particularly, in the provision made in the Bill relating to houses for owner-occupiers under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act and the Housing Act, 1949. The item in the Schedule is for a modest amount of only £1¼ million, which could not provide for the acquisition of more than 500 or 600 houses.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government told me recently, at Question Time, that he was anxious to push forward with the use of that Act and to encourage boroughs and the London County Council to develop it. I had hoped that if there was to be criticism of the Bill in respect of an item of that kind, it would be that the item was too small and that not enough dynamic was coming from the Minister of Housing and Local Government to urge the Government to make provision by which citizens, in my constituency for example, could acquire the ends of leases of houses in Paddington which only too frequently are sold on the open market to people who do not live in Paddington at all.
I should have thought that the criticism of the Bill would be that the L.C.C. did not provide enough money to cover this item, and I should have thought that there would not have been an attempt to threaten the interests of housing in one area by holding up the Second Reading of the Bill. To ask for modification which would frustrate the day-today working of London County Council in this and other work seems to me a rather childish and spiteful thing to do. I am sure that those who have brought about this debate have no intention of doing anything to hold up the many other works scheduled in the Bill, for which provision must be made, which cannot have any effect in solving all the problems which hon. Members want to air in this debate. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they shall obtain from the promoters an undertaking—

(1) that during the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March, 1958, they will reduce by an amount of not less than two million pounds such sums to be ex
pended during the said financial year by the London County Council on capital account as are proposed by them to be met out of the general rate of the County of London, and
(2) that they will during the said financial year apply towards expenditure on capital account a sum not exceeding two million pounds out of the current working balances on the general and special county rate accounts.

It was a pity that the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) should have made his speech when he did, because it was so obvious that he was speaking under the impression that he had missed the discussion which is now about to take place. But I should like to refer now, which is the appropriate time, to some of the matters that the hon. Member raised.
The London County Council claims to be the largest local authority in the world. I do not know about that, but it is certainly the most costly. With its current expenditure running at over £100 million a year and its capital expenditure at over £25 million a year, its annual budget is much larger than that of many small nations. I have more than a suspicion that the fact that the product of a Id. rate is no less than £375,000 encourages an attitude that there will always be available an almost inexhaustible supply of public money to burn.
We must be all agreed that the essential condition for all future progress is economic stability. That means that we must relate the rate of our investment to our available productive resources. The highest priority must be given to re-equipping and modernising industry and to atomic development and matters of that kind. Therefore, in order to maintain the country's economy on an even keel, it is essential to regulate the capital expenditure of local authorities and restrict it to what is absolutely necessary. We must be all agreed also that the attack must be concentrated upon capital expenditure because once capital expenditure has been incurred it is impossible

ever again to avoid the resulting maintenance and other annual charges.
That, of course, is the Government's general policy. In October, 1955, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and the then Minister of Housing and Local Government wrote to the local authorities asking them to undertake an urgent review of capital and current expenditure and to refrain, save in cases of exceptional urgency, from undertaking new services which would place additional expenditure either upon Government grants or upon the rates. That was followed in February, 1956, by Circular No. 10, in which the Government announced their intention to severely restrict for a period for at least six months loan sanctions for capital projects which could be deferred without risk to health and other vital interests.
Later in the year there was issued Circular 55/56, which still represents Government policy, drawing attention to the need to maintain the restrictions on loan sanctions. It should be understood that in these matters London County Council is in a very special position. It is the only local authority that is not subject to individual loan sanctions. The authority to proceed with loan expenditure is given by Parliament through the Council's annual money Act. I should say at once, and this is one of the reasons why no one would oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, that London County Council has assured the Treasury that the estimates upon which this money Bill is based have been prepared in the light of the Ministerial circulars to which I have referred. That, however, is not the end of the matter.
In this case, for good or ill, the responsibility and the duty of controlling the borrowing for capital expenditure of the London County Council, which is running at a level of £25 million, and which it has said it will increase to £30 million a year in the course of the next five years, falls upon Parliament. It can discharge that duty in three ways. First, this House might give an instruction to the Committee to strike out any item in the money Bill and so prevent the council from borrowing for that purpose.
I would myself regard that as a desperate last resort because the House, as I see it, in considering this Bill, is not concerned with the authorisation or the


approval of the schemes with which it deals, but only with the amount which the council is to be authorised to borrow. The desirability or otherwise of individual schemes of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Paddington, North ought to be left to the responsibility of the local authority and to the discretion of the council. That, as I understand it, is the essence of local democracy.
Secondly, this House might instruct the Committee to restrict the total amount of the authorisation and leave the council to make the individual amendments, but in view of the assurances which have been given to the Treasury, and which make that aspect of the matter clear, I would not suggest that it took that course this year.
The third way in which Parliament can discharge its responsibility is to have regard to the total amount which ought to be authorised in the light of the general financial position of the council. That is the object of the Instruction which is on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of some of my hon. Friends. If it were to decide to give such an instruction, the House would be saying in effect, "We will only give you the borrowing powers you seek if you undertake to put your financial affairs in proper order, because it is clear that this year you are raising more money than you require to meet your estimated expenditure in the current financial year. We are not normally concerned with the way in which you manage your financial affairs, except in so far as you cannot come to this House and to Parliament to get the authorisation to borrow money which you do not require."
The fact is that this year the London County Council has imposed upon the ratepayers of London a staggering increase in rates that is in no way justified by immediate needs or rising costs. The estimated net expenditure on rate account has risen by 12 per cent, to over £40 million, and by no less than 20 per cent, over last year's actual expenditure. The increase in rates of 2s. 4d., which has been imposed, represents an increase of no less than 35 per cent, over the last financial year.

Mr. J. T. Price: Revaluation.

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman interposes "Revaluation". He evidently knows something about these matters to talk about that, but I would point out that in considering the increase imposed by the London County Council of 35 per cent, over last year, we must take into account the fact that in the case of Kent it was only 10 per cent., in the case of Surrey it was only 16 per cent., and in the case of Middlesex it was only 18 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue this matter further afterwards, I shall be glad to give him additional information.
It may be confidently argued that the amount demanded in rates by the London County Council this year is about £4 million higher than is really required to meet its estimated expenditure. The position was summed up in a leading article in The Times of 23rd April this year, which stated:
 When the L.C.C. budget was debated the Conservative opposition argued, with some force, that rate-borne expenditure was being raised beyond immediate needs for electoral reasons; and their case is amplified in the current issue of The Londoner, issued by the London Municipal Society. The sum budgeted for contingencies is high. Capital outlay financed from revenue is raised from £500.000 last year (when borrowing cost more) to £2,500,000, and only £712,000 of expenditure is to be met by drawing on balances, against £2,732,000 last year and £4,800.000 in 1955, the last election year. Of the whole increase of 2s. 4d. in the county rate (from 6s. 8d. to 9s.), up to Is. might have been saved by a more prudent policy if all possible outlay had been deferred until next year, when, it is hoped, the new values for Crown property and the higher liability to be borne by industry will appreciably enlarge the total values on which rates are levied.
I agree with that comment, with one reservation in respect to Crown property.

Mr. Albert Evans (Islington, Southwest): The hon. Gentleman has quoted from The Times leading article of 23rd April last. I was looking at that of this morning. Would the hon. Gentleman enlighten us by reading the last two or three sentences of that leading article?

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman is always well informed and can no doubt refer to it himself.
The reservation which I want to make, which is perhaps an important one for the record, is that in respect of Crown property an allocation of between £2 million and 12½ million was made in the


estimates. Accordingly I would not go quite as far as The Times in making reference to Is. but would be content to suggest 9d.
The first part of the proposed Instruction deals with the proposal of the Council to meet an additional £2 million of capital expenditure out of revenue. I agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite that the financial soundness of such a policy, or the political motives which inspire it, are not matters which concern us here. What is really at issue is the propriety of the council coming to this House to seek an authorisation to borrow money when it does not intend to borrow it. As I understand the position, and I think it is clear from the sixth paragraph of the Preamble, the total estimated capital expenditure of the council for the current financial year is set out in Part 1 of the Schedule. In so far as that is the position, no authorisation is needed to the extent that the amount is to be raised out of revenue. The council cannot expect to have it both ways.
That brings me to the second part of the Instruction. In so far as it is part of the council's policy, in its wisdom, to meet an additional £2 million of capital expenditure out of revenue then I think it would not be unreasonable for this House to limit its authorisation to borrow, not by an arbitrary striking out of individual items but by requiring that this sum should be met out of moneys already available to the council and surplus to its immediate requirements; while at the same time, as part of the same operation, limiting the amount to be expended in order to ensure that an excessive authorisation to borrow is not being provided.
That the council could do that is evidenced by the fact that it has this year, as The Times leading article points out, provided an additional sum for contingencies of £500,000 over and above the normal provision, plus nearly £500,000 for provisional sums which have not yet been approved by the council. It has also provided for a closing balance £500,000 greater than that which was thought sufficient last year. All this in a year which is known to be difficult for ratepayers and at a time when it is essential to limit public expenditure.
There is, furthermore—I think this will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the

Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price)—the knowledge which we all have that over many years there has been a gross underestimate of the actual closing balance. I should like to emphasise that I do not think that it would ever be the duty of this House to intervene directly to control the financial policy of the Council as distinct from its borrowing powers, and therefore it would be wrong if this Instruction were to say that the Council should spend "at least" £2 million out of its working balance for any purpose. But it is right to define the limit of the Council's contemplated spending of capital expenditure out of revenue in order to regulate the amount which this House authorises to be borrowed.
There are obvious difficulties in the way of passing an Instruction of this kind. I am sure that no one, certainly no hon. Member on this side of the House wishes to intervene in the affairs of any local authority. It must be emphasised—'however regrettable it may be that we should be forced into that position—that so long as this procedure is adopted, so long as a money Bill comes annually before this House, Parliament has not merely the power, but the responsibility and the duty to consider whether or not this capital expenditure is necessary in the sense of whether it is necessary for this House to authorise the borrowing.
It may well be that in this regard the London County Council should be put on the same basis as all other local authorities and the matter left to the Treasury and the ordinary process of administration. It must be noted, and it appears from the money Bill, that the London County Council exercises a special relationship in regard to the Metropolitan borough councils, and this Bill regulates the amount of money which the London County Council is authorised to lend to the Metropolitan borough councils. No one on this side of the House would wish to deprive them of the opportunity of receiving that money, but it should be emphasised that the London County Council, even though it has the authorisation to borrow, will not necessarily do so.
This has been the subject of a good deal of concern on the part of hon. Members opposite. I think that the last


time the subject of financing the Metropolitan borough councils was discussed was on the occasion of the Second Reading debate on the Stockton-on-Tees Bill, on 26th February of this year, when the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) had this to say:
London County Council, I beg the Minister to believe, is not local government. It is a curious form of local government "—
At this point the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson) intervened to say, "A bastard type." This is followed by a question mark in the OFFICIAL REPORT so that it is evident the hon. Member was referring to the London County Council and not to his colleague. The hon. Member for Leeds, West continued—
 which exercises a sort of overlordship over metropolitan boroughs, giving them only powers which equate to less than those of a rural district council.
A little later the hon. Member said:
 Wandsworth and Woolwich are not allowed to grow up. They have to take their sanctions for loans not only from the Ministry, but from County Hall."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 26th February, 1957; Vol. 565, c. 1144.]
I do not believe that that is a very satisfactory state of affairs. It may well be that shortly it will be necessary to have some inquiry into London government.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: While it used to be the case that the London County Council was the loan sanctioning authority for the Metropolitan boroughs, I think—I hope that I am not mistaken—that that power has now been taken over by Her Majesty's Government, and that it is no longer exercised by the London County Council. If that be so, I should have thought, in view of the prominent position which he occupies on the London County Council, and especially on the Finance Committee, that the hon. Member would not have fallen into an error of that kind.

Mr. Rippon: I hesitate to cross swords with so formidable a figure in the history of London as the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). It may be that I made a mistake in taking my information from an hon. Member opposite. But I think that if the right hon. Gentleman looks at Clause 4, and if he will look at Part II of the Schedule, he will see a reference to the amounts authorised to be lent to the Metropolitan borough councils. These are amounts which

will not in fact be lent to the Metropolitan borough councils, although authorised by Parliament, unless, in its wisdom, the London County Council decides to lend the money.

Mr. A. Evans: Let us get this matter clear. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham. South (Mr. H. Morrison) asked the hon. Member to correct a mistake which he had made. The hon. Member seemed to say that the London County Council was the sanctioning authority for the loans taken up by the Metropolitan boroughs. Now he seems to be saying something different, that the London County Council in effect advances money and that is something different from sanctioning a loan.

Mr. Rippon: Perhaps I might try to explain the position to the hon. Member, who has been a member of the London County Council, and should appreciate the position. When I used the term "sanction"—quoting the hon. Member for Leeds, West—I was using it, I hope I have made it clear, so far as the provision in the money Bill is concerned. It is an authorisation to the London County Council to lend money to the Metropolitan borough councils. But this House should understand that the Metropolitan borough councils do not necessarily get that £3 million unless the London County Council chooses to lend it to them.
The capital expenditure of the Metropolitan borough councils is, of course, subject to the ordinary control by loan sanction under the various circulars, and at the beginning of my remarks I said that the London County Council, so far as concerns the formal loan sanction, was in a unique position since its loan sanction derives from Act of Parliament.
I hope that consideration will be given to this question of London government as soon as possible. When that is done, the opportunity might be taken to remove the anomaly of an annual money Bill. In the meantime I have no doubt whatever that the power and expenditure of that remorseless juggernaut at County Hall has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Price: I beg to second the Motion.
I am sure that everyone here realises that our interests are not so much with


the Amendment as with the concluding words of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) in calling on the Minister to institute an inquiry into the London County Council. I have great hopes that my right hon. Friend will be sympathetic to this suggestion. I have been a member of the London County Council for six years. I had the honour of serving under his leadership— unfortunately, always on the minority side of the chamber—and I have often heard him express views similar to those now being urged upon him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South has dealt so adequately with the subject that he has left me with but a few "i's" to dot and "t's" to cross. There are two arguments which I wish to underline in urging the need for this inquiry upon the Minister. There is a feeling throughout London, as every hon. Member representing a London constituency will know, that the London County Council is too large —

Mr. Gibson: Rubbish.

Mr. Price: The hon. Member cannot dismiss an argument merely by calling it rubbish.
There is a feeling that the London County Council is too large, too powerful and too impersonal and, therefore, that it is hopeless to oppose it on any issue whatever. Whether or not this impression is soundly based is immaterial to my argument. The fact remains that the impression is widespread.
Mention has been made of the London County Council housing programme. We all know, especially those who have been members of the London County Council, of the difficulties experienced by the Council in discharging its housing duties. One aspect which greatly concerns me is the grossly uneconomic nature of its housing operations during recent years. The trend has been for it to become uneconomic.
The position has now been reached where the L.C.C. subsidy, which is borne by the rates, is more than twice the authorised subsidy and where sites are being acquired at such a high cost that the site cost per flat or house is more than the ultimate cost of building the flat or house. Economic rents are soaring to astronomical figures. The L.C.C. still has

no differential rent scheme, and the deficit which is falling upon the rates is increasing rapidly.
I entirely agree that this House would not wish to interfere with local authorities, but it must be borne in mind that local authorities operate within powers conferred upon them by the House. It is right that from time to time a review should be held to ensure that those responsibilities are properly discharged. The case for a review of the way in which the L.CC. is discharging its housing responsibilities is very strong indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South referred to the closing balances. This is a very old sore. My right hon. Friend and I fought this battle year after year at County Hall when, year after year, the actual closing balance was far in excess of the estimated balance. We argued year after year that it was far too high. Every student of local government knows that it is bad local government finance for the closing balance to be too high.

Mr. A. Evans: Is the hon. Member quoting the district auditor on that?

Mr. Price: I will quote him.

Mr. Evans: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House in which year the district auditor ruled that the closing balance was too high?

Mr. Price: I propose to do just that.

Mr. John Hay: It was 1942.

Mr. Price: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the year. Every year we argued —

Mr. Gibson: And we disagreed with you.

Mr. Price: In that case hon. Members disagreed with the district auditor, which was a pity. There may have been a difference of opinion as to what the level should be, but the case which my right hon. Friend and I argued at County Hall year after year was completely vindicated by the district auditor himself, who bore out our criticisms. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which year?"] With regard to the year, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) tells me that it was 1942. I think it was later. I was a member of the L.C.C. from 1946 to 1952 and I am fairly sure that it was during my years there.

Mr. Hay: Perhaps he did it twice.

Mr. Price: The district auditor may have done it twice.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman has quoted a public official who obviously cannot defend himself, and has done so on the hearsay of his hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). Are we clear as to the year?

Mr. Price: No —

Mr. Evans: And about what his hon. Friend has led the hon. Member to believe the district auditor said about that year's balance?

Mr. Price: I must admit that I am not prepared to be dogmatic about the year.

Mr. C. W. Key: What did he say?

Mr. Price: If I had known I was to be challenged on this point I would have armed myself with the information. Every member of the L.C.C., particularly members during those years, will know that what I am saying is true. I would not be surprised if my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government could furnish the year. If he can, I hope that he will do so when he answers the debate. My recollection is quite clear and I am prepared to check on this in the Library and consult the hon. Member afterwards. The district auditor criticised the floating balance very severely in one of the years when I was there.
The L.C.C. has not mended its ways since and I have the figures since 1952. In 1953–54, the estimated closing balance was £2,800,000 and the actual closing balance was £6,390,000. In the following year, the estimated balance was again £2,800,000 and the actual closing balance was £5,780,000. In the following year, the estimated closing balance was £2½ million, but the actual closing balance was £5,301,000. I argue that those closing balances were grossly excessive and should be reduced.
But that is not the end of the argument; there is the whole argument referred to by my hon. Friend which relates to the use to which those closing balances were put. Hon. Members opposite seem to have figures in front of them. If they refer to the amount of these closing balances which were devoted to the relief

of rates, they will find a rather curious phenomenon. They will find that the amount in relief of rates had a habit of rising very steeply in Election years and falling very low the following year, or possibly being low the year before.
In 1952–53, as The Times has said, the amount devoted to the relief of rates was £4,832,000. That was election year. In the following year it was only £806,000. This year the amount devoted to the relief of rates is only £711,000. I wonder what it will be next year. If I were a betting man I would be willing to wager that it will be considerably more than £711,000.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South has drawn attention to the item of £2½ million to be raised from the rates of capital expenditure. This is an exceptionally high figure when compared with only £½ million last year. The argument, as I understand, is that this sum is necessary owing to the increased cost of borrowing, but the argument does not hold water. The cost of borrowing is lower this year than it was last year. If that argument were sound it would apply even more strongly to last year than to this, yet last year's figure was only £.½ million and this year the figure is £2½ million.
At this time of night the House would not want me to go into greater detail than that, or to give a long and complicated list of figures. My hon. Friend and I have submitted a strong case that the time has come for an inquiry into the functions and administration of the L.C.C, particularly its financial administration, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give this suggestion his sympathetic consideration.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Both as a Parliamentarian and as one who has spent a good deal of his life in local government I very much regret, irrespective of party politics, that this debate is taking place and that the proposed Instruction has been moved.
We have listened to two Government back bench Members. One is a member of the L.C.C. and one has been a member. We have really been listening to a repetition of the debates held at County Hall. The debates in County Hall are always worth listening to, because they are very


good, but I do not think it is necessary that they should be repeated in the House of Commons. Therefore, this is a misuse of Parliamentary time and is merely using a Parliamentary stratagem for the purpose of making a party political attack upon a local authority that happens to have a majority which is unacceptable to the two hon. Members opposite. I do not think that that is the right and dignified use of the occasion of the Second Reading of a Private Bill in the House of Commons.
To the best of my recollection, we never did it when the Conservatives were in power. We never used this House for that kind of purpose, except when we got two high policy Bills like the London traffic co-ordination Bill and the electricity Bill, which were separate, clear issues. We did not use the Council's Bills for the purpose of staging here a general debate on London County Council administration by the Conservatives. I think it is wrong that this great Parliamentary institution should be used for the purpose of local government electioneering.

Mr. Partridge: Does the right hon. Member suggest that on the money Bills which come before us we should just content ourselves by praising London County Council and saying, "Good luck. Let it go on"? Is that our duty as Parliamentarians?

Mr. Morrison: I do not expect too much.

Mr. Partridge: I should not think that the right hon. Member does.

Mr. Morrison: By the sound of the hon. Member I should not expect much.
Certainly, the House has a right to deal with a money Bill. I suggest that what the House has a right to deal with vis-à-vis a money Bill is: is the total amount of capital expenditure proposed too much? Is it too much on particular items? I think that that was contemplated when this legal provision was made, but I should not have thought we ought to turn the House of Commons into what might well be a meeting of the Finance Committee of the London County Council.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon), who leads the Conserva-

tives at County Hall on financial matters, has used all these arguments there. Unfortunately for him—I am sorry about this, purely on grounds of his personal disappointment—he did not get his own way and now he comes to the House of Commons to vent his feelings and repeat the arguments he used at County Hall. Those arguments were quite suitable for a debate on the budget of the London County Council, but not suitable to be used in the House of Commons.

Mr. H. A. Price: I am sure that the right hon. Member, as a local authority man, would agree that proceedings at County Hall get very little publicity and that it is desirable that they should get publicity. May not this debate serve a useful purpose in that respect?

Mr. Morrison: I regret, with the hon. Member, that the London County Council does not get more publicity for its debates. That is unfortunate. Provincial cities do rather better in that respect, because most of them have local newspapers. The curse of London is that we are afflicted by national newspapers and that there is no London Press left. The hon. Member had better come here for a minute and look at the Press Gallery of the House of Commons. He will find it quite empty. The probability is that there will not be much more publicity for this debate.
If it is publicity the hon. Member wants, having watched his activities in Lewisham, I should say that he did get a bit for his Middle-class Alliance, especially when it died. I do not mind publicity myself and I think it is a pity that newspapers do not report the proceedings of the London County Council. The vacant look of the Press Gallery of the House of Commons tonight is one of the saddest things that I have seen in this institution.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South said that he was not moving to strike out any item, or part of an item, from the Bill. That was not very courageous if he thinks, as evidently he does, that the Council is spending too much. If he had moved to strike out a great many millions on housing, that would have been an act of courage. But he has not done it, nor has he moved to strike out on education, health, or other things. I should have had more respect for the


hon. Member if he had enough courage to say, "This is too much and I move that the Committee be instructed to reduce it."

Mr. Rippon: I do not think that the right hon. Member has followed my argument, which was not directed to particular items or to a repetition of the L.C.C. budget debate, but to whether or not this House should authorise, or encourage the authorisation of, capital expenditure by borrowing when it knew that the financial resources of the Council were such that it could, and did, in fact, intend to, raise the money out of revenue.

Mr. Morrison: With the merits of that argument I shall deal shortly and give the history; it is interesting.
The hon. Member and his hon. Friend said that they did not wish to interfere with the administration of London County Council or any other local authority. The Minister of Housing and Local Government has advanced policies which he says are based on the doctrine of giving local authorities more initiative and freedom, particularly in financial matters. I hope that the Minister will—I feel sure he will—stick to the principles he has uttered in that connection tonight and resist the proposal put forward by his hon. Friends. They believe in local democracy, but they are trying to turn the House of Commons into a sort of House of Lords over the London County Council.
They say that the Council should be treated in the same way as any other local authority, with which, of course I agree, and—a different matter—dealt with by the Minister and not by the House of Commons. If the Minister wanted to do what the hon. Members propose vis-à-vis the London County Council, if the Minister waned to put it on the same footing as the great City of Birmingham or the City of Manchester, I do not think that he could do it. He could refuse loan sanction, but I do not think that he would interfere with balances and expenditure, and the setting aside of money for capital expenditure. He could deal with particular capital expenditure for specific purposes.
It is also said that the London County Council is a much too big authority. Some people think that it is not big enough. I do not necessarily put myself among them, but some take that view.

It is not very much bigger in area than the City of Birmingham. It is also said that it bosses the Metropolitan boroughs. It does not. It has very little, if any, power over the Metropolitan borough councils and does not particularly want to have that power.

Mr. Hay: It puts the rates up.

Mr. Morrison: Of course it precepts its rates, but it was implied that it could boss the Metropolitan boroughs. I do not think it can.
The borrowing sanction has gone and all that happens is that at the request of the Metropolitan boroughs the London County Council makes available, so far as it can, money they need for capital purposes. That does not mean that it is the sanctioning authority. Those sanctioning powers went about 1940 with the good will of London County Council. As a matter of fact, the relationship between London County Council and the Metropolitan boroughs is better today than it ever was and notably better than ir was, curiously enough, when there was a majority of Conservative borough councils and a Conservative majority at County Hall. Then, they did not get on too well.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price) referred to the district auditor and the working balances. Let us consider what the district auditor said in 1944–45. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West did not know what the district auditor said, he did not know when he said it, and did not know who the district auditor was. Apart from that, he knew all about it. In 1945 the district auditor said that the figure then was "a strictly moderate figure". It was then £2·8 million. If we take the then level of expenditure of about £50 million a year, that was the equivalent of about double the present working balance of the London County Council, so the provision for the working balance is moderate compared with 1944–45, and in 1944–45 the district auditor said that ii was "a strictly moderate figure" Perhaps the hon. Member for Lewisham, West would like to withdraw the aspersions which he has cast upon the district auditor.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: I have before me the London County Council's minutes of 3rd December, 1946, dealing


with this very matter. The report by Mr. Hurle Hobbs, the district auditor, on 24th May, 1946, gave as great a castigation to the irregularities of the London County Council's Finance Committee as has ever been given by any district auditor in the history of local government in this country. The right hon. Gentleman said that the London County Council was cleared by the district auditor. The opposite is the fact.
I do not wish to make a speech by interruption, but if the House and the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, I should like to say that, with reference to balances, according to the report of Mr. Hurle Hobbs, in 1944, the estimated balance in the Council's budget was £1,900,000, but the actual surplus for that year was £14 million. Mr. Hurle Hobbs castigated the London County Council for irregularities in budgets.

Mr. Gibson: Not for its balances.

Mr. Morrison: We were dealing with balances. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West said that the district auditor had specifically condemned the balances. 1 have quoted what the district auditor said about the year 1944–45, and I have shown that the present provision for working balances, taking account of the changed circumstances, is moderate compared with what it was then. At the time, it was blessed by the district auditor. While the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) has enjoyed himself and has surely made a speech, it is like the flowers that bloom in the spring, it has nothing to do with the case.
It has been said that it is a very serious thing—-of course it is—that the London County Council rate has risen by 2s. 4d. I am a London ratepayer and I have to pay like any member of the Council has to do. Why should I want the rates to rise by 2s. 4d.? We had better see how the increase is accounted for. It seemed to be implied that to raise the rate by 2s. 4d. was an electoral device. It is the first time that I have heard a rate increase described as an electoral device to win the next election.
I have heard of people losing elections because they had increased the rates. I also had the experience of being instrumental, in the Borough of Hackney, in

reducing the rates by 2s. just before an election, only to find that we lost every Labour seat on the council. Goodness knows what is right about the business, but I have never heard the argument advanced that to increase the rate by 2s. 4d. has an advantage electorally.
Let us see how the increase in the rate is made up. First, there is a 20 per cent, reduction in the rateable value of shops and commercial and miscellaneous properties in the Administrative County of London by virtue of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1957. From their local experience, hon. Members may feel that that Act is not as serious as it might have been, but it is particularly serious in the County of London, where there is a large amount of commercial property and large shops. Indeed, as I have said, the rateable value was reduced by 20 per cent. The product of a 1d. rate there is reduced by 12½ per cent, compared with only 7 per cent, for the country as a whole. Therefore, a certain amount of the increase of 2s. 4d. can be attributed to this factor, which the House will agree is entirely beyond the control of the London County Council and is the consequence of legislation brought in, rightly or wrongly, by Her Majesty's Government. It is no good blaming the London County Council for that.
Then there is the smaller amount available from the rate balances, for the rate balances ran down, partly owing to increased expenditure in other ways over which the Council had no control. It was necessary to increase the rate balances, because these are needed not as an electoral device for playing about with at the end of the financial year in making the rate, but for the purpose of meeting expenditure throughout the year when income is not balancing the outgoing money, though the income will come in in due course.
They are also needed by the London County Council and many other local authorities, because they give them more elbow-room in deciding when they should go on the market or elsewhere to borrow money. Consequently, it was necessary that the working balances should be increased. For these reasons, that was done, but the fall in the amount available in the working balances accounts for an increase of 5d. in the rate.
There was a modest increase in the expenditure falling on the rates, most of it outside the Council's control. For example, nearly half the increase in expenditure falling on the rates arose from the recent Burnham award which increased the salaries of teachers, and the bulk of the remainder is due to other increases in salaries, wages and prices and to the increased cost of borrowing. For all these things, the Government and the House have some responsibility. The total increase in rate attributable to higher expenditure is about 6d.

Mr. Gibson: That is 1s. 11d. gone.

Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend says, that is 1s. lid. gone out of the 2s. 4d.
Let us now come to the point about meeting capital expenditure. This policy was instituted by the former Conservative majority on the London County Council. I remember the occasion very well. My late friend, Mr. Emil Davies, who was leading our people as an opposition on the Finance Committee, came to see me and some of my colleagues and said that the Conservatives were proposing to levy a Id. rate, and would probably make it materially more, to meet some of the Council's capital expenditure out of the rates instead of borrowing and having to pay interest on the borrowed money. It was a long-sighted scheme for economy.
I say freely and frankly that the whole credit for what was a good idea belongs not to the present Labour Party majority on the London County Council, but to the former Conservative Party majority. I never thought I should see the day when Conservative hon. Members in this House would condemn the former Conservative Party majority on the London County Council.
What was proposed by the Conservative majority was done. The figure was put up to 3d. I believe that the amount collected in pre-war years averaged about £700,000 annually, then nearly a 3d. rate. Some of the years were Conservative years and some were Labour years. The idea is that if one can manage to get some of one's capital expenditure out of revenue, one is saving interest payments, and interest payments on what is borrowed now are fairly substantial. It is estimated that the proposals which the

Council has approved for setting aside revenue for capital purposes will save it at least £100,000 a year for sixty years. Surely that is an act of constructive economy which ought to be approved, instead of condemned, by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I tremble to think what would happen to the London County Council's finances if the hon. Member for Norwich, South became chairman of its Finance Committee. I hope that it will not be the case, but I am sure that as he wants to abolish the London County Council, hates the place, has no pride in it, he would not wish to be chairman of its Finance Committee or hold any other prominent position in a Conservative mapority in that assembly. I was sorry to hear his anti-London County Council bias, and also that of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, because, altogether apart from party politics here, the London County Council is a great municipality, it is honourably operated and it is efficiently administered. We can argue about its policy and about its financial arrangements, but surely it is a municipality of which London and the country can be proud. Indeed, it is recognised as such by local government people all over the world.
This Instruction is wrong in principle. It is trying to do for a local authority what it could do for itself, and I would not agree with it no matter what the local authority was—whether the London County Council or any other local authority in any other part of the United Kingdom. This Instruction is improper. First, it instructs the Committee, "Before you start with the Bill, get these London County Council people together and tell them that you will not pass the Bill unless you have an effective finger in the pie, in the internal domestic management of the finances of the London County Council."
That is what it means. If this were the City of Birmingham, or Manchester or Liverpool, Leeds or Glasgow—or Norwich—hon. Members would not dare to attempt this. This is done because of the Council's special position in London, and because the House of Commons has always liked having a bit of fun with the London County Council—as it did some years ago over the Waterloo Bridge. That was


straightforwardly done. I did not agree with it, but it was straightforwardly done by striking out the provision for Waterloo Bridge. In that case, Parliament made a big mistake. Having denied the right of the Council to borrow for the bridge, it could not stop the Council, within its lawful powers, proceeding with the bridge out of the rates.
Everybody now says what a beautiful bridge Waterloo Bridge is, and how wrong the House of Commons was to try to stop it being built. That ought to be a warning. I did not say, while that debate was on, that we would defy the House of Commons—it is always better not to do that then; it is better to reserve that until the decision has been reached. Nevertheless, Parliament made a great mistake on that occasion.
Our decision was popular. It is still popular. One has only to mention that jolly old bridge and one is sure of a cheer. It goes well. It did not do Parliament any good to decide in that way, because Parliament was doing—what? It was really intervening in what was within the lawful powers of the London County Council on that occasion. It was intervening not only with the Labour majority then, but it had interfered with the Conservative majority at County Hall before. The difference was that the Conservatives did not know how to deal with the situation, and we did.
Parliament did not do itself any good, because it went over the rather imaginary line of- what is Parliamentary and what is municipal and local government. That bridge was local government. It was London's business, and if there was to be a row it was for the Council to have a row with its own citizens, and with anyone else who wanted one, and, having listened to it all, it was for the Council to come to its own decision.
With great respect, I say today that the House of Commons—and I like the place —was not the appropriate tribunal to settle the details of that bridge, nor is it the appropriate place in which to do the work of the London County Council Finance Committee. The hon. Members for Norwich and for Lewisham, West, having had a night out—and I hope that they both get a lot of publicity; I hope that we do, too—and having conducted this experiment, I would advise

them to go back to County Hall and get on with this business in the place in which it properly belongs.

Mr. H. A. Price: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, perhaps he would let me correct him on two small points, one unimportant and the other important. He said that I did not knew who the district auditor was. He is wrong there —I did. He said that I criticised the district auditor. I do not criticise the district auditor. I have been criticising the London County Council.

Mr. Morrison: If I said that the hon. Member criticised the district auditor, I am sorry. I did not mean to. I intended to say that the hon. Member said, or implied, that the district auditor had criticised the Council.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. E. Partridge: I am glad to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) in order to remind him that it is he who has a bad argument who descends to abuse and personalities. I should have thought that before lecturing us on what we should do he should first think of his own conduct. I am not at all impressed when cheap jokes are made by a man who is renowned for clowning. If that is his idea of debate, it is not ours. We believe that we have a right and a duty to perform, and if it pleases him— and I do not want to do that—I am about to attack specific items in this money Bill.
I will deal first of all with the tenth item in the Schedule
 Acquisition of property erection of dwellings provision of hostel accommodation demolition of overhead buildings at White City site and other purposes "—

Mr. Gibson: On a point of order. May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether in view of the terms of the Motion, the line which the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) is taking is in order? This Motion makes no reference at all to any specific item in the Bill. It is a general Instruction, and I submit that if he continues his argument on the present line he will be out of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The Bill has been read a Second time, and there is, therefore, no point in discussing what is in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman can discuss the Instruction.

Mr. Partridge: It is the Instruction to which I am addressing myself—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member is not."]—but it is a specific item—[Interruption.]If I may be allowed to address you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, without any help from the yahoos on the other side —

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to refer to my right hon. and hon. Friends as yahoos?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not hear the hon. Member say that. He should not say it.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Howell: That is a high standard of dialectic.

Mr. Partridge: The first Instruction is that
 they will reduce by an amount of not less than two million pounds, such sums to be expended during the said financial year by the London County Council on capital account as are proposed by them.…
It is on those proposals that I thought I was entitled to address you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If these are not necessary, that is a reason for reducing the amount.
Then I would address you further on the second part of the Instruction. I submit that it is not necessary to ask for loan sanction for expenditure on those items which I have just read out, in view of the act of the Council in destroying the prefabricated houses on Wandsworth Common and Clapham Common. The Council has destroyed houses which people needed, ten years before it was necessary to do so. To come to Parliament and ask for money which the Council can squander again is far too much to ask of Parliament. It is for that reason that I support the Instruction.

Mr. Gibson: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Partridge: No.

Mr. Gibson: The hon. Gentleman had better get his facts right.

Mr. Partridge: I have got my facts perfectly right. A little while ago the hon. Gentleman gloried in the fact that he had rendered a large number of people homeless. If he likes to continue rejoicing in that fact, he will rejoice by

himself. At all events, he should know that his name is held in execration in the Borough of Battersea as a result of what he has done.

Mr. Gibson: May I put the hon. Gentleman right on his facts? He said that the London County Council had spent millions of pounds in building prefabricated houses on the Common —

Mr. Partridge: No I did not.

Mr. Gibson: —and that we ought not to be allowed to have money, as he says, to waste again in that way. Does he not know that the Ministry of Works and not the local authority paid for the prefabs? The Government paid for them all over the country.

Mr. Partridge: The amount of money which is required for building houses in Ilford and elsewhere is twice as much now that they are engaged in replacing the prefabs which have been pulled down on Wandsworth Common. I should have thought that anybody with meagre intelligence could have understood that.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: On a point of order. May we get this matter straight? As I understand it, what the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) is saying should have been said on the Second Reading, and I think you have already ruled to that effect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Instruction which we are now discussing—and the Bill had to have a Second Reading before we could deal with the Instruction—relates to current working balances. Are we to have a general discussion of individual parts of London where money has been spent for one purpose or another, or are we to talk about current working balances?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The rule in Erskine May is that the debate on an Instruction must be strictly relevant thereto and must not be directed to the general objects of the Bill or anticipate the debate on specific Clauses of the Bill.

Mr. Mellish: If the hon. Member for Battersea, South continues with this argument, will you please rule him out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I will do my best to keep all hon. Members in order.

Mr. Partridge: Hon. Members opposite are trying to teach you your business, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and you have shown them that they cannot do so.
I should have thought that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) would have been able to read the first part of the Instruction, which says nothing at all about working balances but refers to money spent on capital account. It is the money spent on capital account to which I am directing myself.
It is unnecessary to ask for all this extra money, in view of what hon. Members opposite have done. I think also that it would be unnecessary to ask, under item 14, for money to buy further open spaces, when the Council is still denying the open spaces on Wandsworth Common to the people who need them. The prefabricated houses were pulled down over a year ago.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Mr. Partridge: Am I out of order in saying that it is not necessary to ask for further money in order to buy open spaces, when there are now available open spaces which could be used but are not capable of being used at the moment because they are cluttered up with the remains of the prefabricated bungalows? That is the tenor of my remarks to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and if I am out of order, I will accept your Ruling.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Let the hon. Member proceed.

Mr. Partridge: I think that I have made my point that it is not really necessary for the L.C.C. to ask for more money for open spaces when there are plenty available, if only they would get busy and clear them of the rubbish left over from the prefabricated houses which they nearly demolished, but left on the open spaces, which are thus not fit for the people to use. It is for that reason, and for various other reasons that I could advance—[Interruption.] I am not going to be put off. The attitude of hon. Members opposite really shows the bankruptcy of their arguments. It shows that they are themselves bankrupt of ideas, and that they are trying to bankrupt the city of London, but they will not succeed.
I think that I have said enough to show that it is right that this Instruction should be given to the Committee on the Bill, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the views expressed by hon. Members on this side of the House, who have pointed out the defects of the London County Council, and have asked him to look very seriously into whether the powers, duties, obligations, functions, and sphere, of the London County Council might be reviewed.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: I think that the debate has been of some value, because it has sought to bring to the attention of the House an aspect of London's affairs which all too seldom receives the consideration that it deserves.
The undertaking managed by the London County Council is enormous. The L.C.C. spends vast sums of money each year, and it is an unfortunate fact that the average citizen of this city does not know enough about how the London County Council works, what it does, or how much money it spends. It spends sums of money that have been quoted tonight, running into many millions of pounds, and the object of this debate has been to try to show the House how necessary it is that, Parliament having provided this type of machinery, we should examine very carefully the undertaking of the London County Council in its capital aspects and the way in which it proposes to carry out its capital projects.
It has been made quite clear from the Bill and from the speeches that have been made that in this coming year the London County Council asks Parliament to approve capital expenditure amounting to £26·2 million. The Council's total overall expenditure this year will be over £100 million, and I think it is true to say that this is the first time in history that the London County Council has ever spent or proposed to spend as much money as that. It is not far short, may I remind the House, of the total Budget of New Zealand. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) will restrain his impatience for a moment, I will make it perfectly plain to him. We are talking in terms of a request from the London County Council for authority from Parliament to spend £26·2 million —

Mr. Gibson: That is not in the Motion.

Mr. Hay: That is the point of the Bill, and I suggest that the hon. Member should read the Schedule.

Mr. Gibson: On a point of order. You have already, ruled, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that speeches must be directed to the Motion before the House. I suggest that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) is indulging in another Second Reading speech about the whole of the Clauses in the Bill. The Motion itself refers to the £2 million to be raised out of the rates, and surely that is all to which the hon. Member can refer?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought that he hon. Gentleman was referring to the capital account.

Mr. Hay: The point of the Bill, to which the Instruction, of course, refers, as you well know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to authorise the spending of £26·2 million.

Mr. Gibson: We have given the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Hay: I know. The Instruction relates to the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman really does not understand these things, I am surprised that he ever left the London County Council.
As the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) said, we are faced with this question. Is it right that Parliament should exercise some degree of detailed investigation into the activities of the London County Council in its more domestic sphere, or should we rather reserve to ourselves the right to criticise individual items in the Bill? My hon. Friends and I thought it right to put down this Instruction because it would not be possible to criticise the points which have been criticised tonight by the method of putting down reductions or deletions of the various estimates contained in the Schedule. It is to the way in which the London County Council is managing the whole of its capital expenditure for the forthcoming year that we wish to draw attention, and it is only by putting down an Instruction in these terms that we can bring such a debate within the bounds of order.
We wish to remind the House that this enormous authority proposes to spend £26·2 million on capital account during

the coming year. It proposes to raise by five times in the present year the amount of money normally devoted to capital expenditure from its rates. Last year, the London County Council raised out of rates for capital purposes £500,000. This year, it proposes to multiply that sum by five and make it £2,500,000. That is the equivalent of about a 5d. rate.
Our first criticism is that with this proposed capital expenditure of £26·2 million, the London County Council is making an increase in the rate of 2s. 4d., of which 5d. could be saved. That is not the only point.

Mr. Gibson: How could it be saved?

Mr. Hay: It could be saved if the London County Council had done what we suggest in the second paragraph of the Instruction, and to that I am coming.
Every year, the London County Council ends its financial year with a surplus.

Mr. Gibson: So does every other local authority.

Mr. Hay: If it were a trading organisation, it would call it a profit. One reason for the surplus usually is that some committees have under-spent. Another reason is that the London County Council habitually under-estimates the product of a penny rate. The consequence is that, every year, year by year —

Mr. Ede: Mr. Ede (South Shields) rose —

Mr. Hay: May I finish the sentence? Year by year, the London County Council winds up with a reserve fund greater than it ever estimated.

Mr. Ede: The London County Council does not estimate the product of a penny rate. The rating authorities do that, and supply the information to the London County Council which, under the Statute, cannot question the figure supplied to it.

Mr. Hay: The right hon. Gentleman was not, I think, listening with his customary care. I did not say that the London County Council underestimates it. I said that it was due to such a factor as the underestimating of the product of a penny rate, and the consequence is reflected in the fact that, year by year, the Council winds up with a bigger closing balance than was anticipated.

Mr. Ede: When we see HANSARD tomorrow, we shall know what the hon. Gentleman did say.

Mr. Hay: In any event, it is a comparatively minor point.
The point that I want to make—and it is the important one—is that the Council always winds up with a larger sum of money in the "kitty" than it expected to have, and at the end of the last financial year it had a balance in hand of £32 million.
I put the two points together. Here is the London County Council saying that it must raise £2½ million out of rate revenue, from the ratepayers direct, to finance its capital expenditure in the forthcoming year; but at the same time it already had in the "kitty" £3·2 million and this year it does not intend to raise so much from its reserves to pay for its capital expenditure on housing, schools and the rest, as has been done in former years.
We believe—I think it is true—that this is done largely because next year, as has been said, is a London County Council election year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Really."] Whether that be true or not, is it not a matter which should be investigated by Parliament, and one in which the average citizen of this great capital city has an interest? Most of us here, I expect, are ratepayers in the County of London. Is it right that we should be called upon to pay a rate 5d. more than we ought to be paying if the London County Council managed its finances properly? That is what the debate is all about.
It is no use the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South getting up in the pulpit and saying how he deplores this sort of debate and how it is like debates in the Finance Committee of the London County Council. These are not pennies that we are talking about. They are vast sums of many millions of pounds, and it was, in this year more than in any other, due to the very fact that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, that so many premises have been derated to the extent of 20 per cent, that, if in any particular year, it was in this year that the L.C.C. should have done its utmost to keep its rate level as low as it could.
When we have the derating of commercial property, it follows that other

ratepayers have to bear a consequently increased burden.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. William Ross: I do not remember seeing the hon. Member in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Hay: Allowing the noise on the Mappin Terraces opposite to subside, I will simply say that I am delighted to hear that hon. Members opposite agree with the argument I am putting forward.
If the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes is that this derating of 20 per cent, was an unexpected shock to the London County Council, is it not surely the case that the Council ought by that very token to have done its utmost to keep its rate as low as possible and so relieve the other ratepayers as much as possible from having to bear this additional burden? That, however, is not what the L.C.C. has done. This year, it is budgeting not only for a very substantial sum of capital expenditure, but for an overall increase for all the other purposes of the Council. This year, for the first time, the total to be raised and spent by the London County Council tops the £100 million mark.
These are all matters that the House of Commons is entitled to consider. It may be said that that is interference in the domestic affairs of local authorities.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member could not do it in Glasgow.

Mr. Hay: The hon. Member had better sit up again all night tonight. I hope that he enjoys it.
I can understand that point of view being held, but we are here dealing with a very special case, for two reasons: first, because Parliament has itself laid down that by means of this annual money Bill, we are entitled to investigate this sort of matter; and secondly, because this is the largest local authority in the country, disposing of larger sums of money than any other.
I would not mind betting that it was because of the size and scale of the London County Council's operations, financial and otherwise, that our predecessors in Parliament decided that this was the right thing to do and that the L.C.C. should not be in the position of having to go to a Ministry but should come to


Parliament. If that is the case, is it not right that we should make a searching investigation of what it does?
Some of us though not unanimously, as this debate has shown, feel that these are matters which require investigation, and I think that the effect of the debate will be to turn a searchlight on some of those murky corners of the London County Council's financing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Smear."] Far too few people in London know what this is all about. They stand faced by this monolithic organisation. They vaguely know what it means. They see the letters "L.C.C." in different parts of the capital. But they believe they are completely helpless. The Metropolitan borough councils know they are virtually powerless. They are forced to increase their own rates by the amount of the precept arbitrarily fixed by the London County Council.

Mr. Gibson: Nonsense.

Mr. Hay: The Mayor of Holborn in correspondence in the Press only a few weeks ago complained bitterly of this.
It is a fact that the ordinary person in London, the ordinary ratepayer, feels himself helpless. This debate, if it has no other effect, will still be a useful debate because it helps to show the average ratepayer in London that there is a body stronger than the London County Council. That is the House of Commons. If the House of Commons chooses, unless the London County Council financially mends its ways, the House will intervene, and will prevent the London County Council from carrying on in this profligate and spendthrift way. It is for that reason that we have sought to debate this matter tonight.
I do not know what my right hon. Friend is going to say. He is in some difficulty, I suppose. Seeing him, with his long London County Council experience, and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has also been somewhat connected with these matters in the past, sitting on the Government Front Bench, I think that this is a somewhat ironical position. Be that as it may, I think it may well be that my right hon. Friend may feel it his duty to advise the House not to accept the Instruction. In that case, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member

for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) may wish to withdraw it.

Mr. J. T. Price: He has withdrawn himself.

Mr. Hay: Whether the Instruction be withdrawn or carried to a Division, neither this House nor the L.C.C. should underestimate the importance of this debate because it shows the amber light —

Mr. Gibson: The hon. Member ought not to lecture people.

Mr. Hay: I shall certainly lecture them if they need it. The one body in this Kingdom which needs lecturing is the London County Council.

Mr. David Jones: This is not the London Municipal Society.

Mr. Hay: Unless and until the London County Council mends its way we shall, year by year, acting as watchdogs—

Mr. D. Howell: The hon. Member is not a watchdog. He is a lapdog.

Mr. Hay: —on behalf of the ratepayers of London, do our utmost to defeat the bad way in which the London County Council manages its affairs.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I think at first blush the House may wonder what the interest of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) is in the municipal affairs of London.

Mr. Hay: I will tell the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skeffington: I know. I will tell the House. Although he represents the riparian and delightful rural constituency of Henley it is not unknown to us that he is a director or some officer of the London Municipal Society. Therefore we cannot help feeling that the reason for the Motion is not unconnected with his political activities in the London Municipal Society, a Conservative organisation.

Mr. Hay: That is a perfectly fair point to make, but being in that position gives me a greater insight, perhaps, than the insight given to the ordinary ratepayers outside into the bad way in which the London County Council manages its


finances, and it makes me more than ever eager to bring the matter to the attention of the public.

Mr. Skeffington: I am very glad to think that the London Municipal Society, which does not seem to have the most striking political success in municipal affairs, at any rate serves some purpose in keeping the hon. Member informed about some of the conditions in London. But the very statement that the hon. Member has made reinforces the protest made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) that this Instruction has been placed on the Order Paper more in the interest of municipal politics than of the House of Commons.
We ought to regret it and record our protest that this method has been used. The only other occasion in recent years on which a similar event occurred in the House of Commons was when another hon. Member opposite proposed certain Amendments to the general purposes Bill of the London County Council which, had they been carried, would have prevented the L.C.C. from seeing to it that bad landlords who refused to mend the drains could be proceeded against in the courts.
Our experiences when hon. Members opposite have sought to tamper with legislation started by the London County Council have not been very encouraging or helpful, and I hope that the House will say that it does not like this kind of Parliamentary manoeuvre. But in any case, even from the standpoint of the standards and principles adopted by hon. Gentlemen opposite and enunciated on the platforms outside the House, I find it very difficult to understand this Instruction, which seems to be so very much at variance with what they say elsewhere. The gravamen of their charge, so often made outside the House, is that local. government ought really to be local —

Mr. Hay: And it ought to be good.

Mr. Skeffington: —and that it ought to be independent of central authority as far as possible, and out of the shadow of Whitehall. Yet the detailed instructions now suggested would completely undermine the independence of local government, whether it happens to be a great

authority or a little one. I do not understand how the hon. Member for Henley reconciles what is supposed to be Conservative municipal principle outside the House with the kind of tactics that he and his hon. Friends have adopted in the House tonight.
In addition, they seek to set themselves up as very much better informed about the affairs of the County of London than hon. Members on both sides of the House who are members of the Council at County Hall. That claim ought to be decisively rejected by the House.
I know that that is not so with regard to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon). He is a member of the London County Council. His case is even more regrettable. Having failed to persuade members of the County Council to adopt his point of view he is now using Parliamentary time for a purpose for which it was never intended—to reverse decisions taken at County Hall.
Instances of attempted interference by the Government have been very unhappy. The last time that the Government attempted to interfere was over the question of Waterloo Bridge. Everybody regretted it, including the Government of the day in due course.
It is important to realise that the sums required under the Bill are all for purposes which I imagine are generally approved. There are developments like the duplication of Blackwall Tunnel, the widening of the Strand, the housing of old people, education, and others, detailed in various parts of the Bill, which it will be out of order for me to traverse at present; but it is quite wrong to suggest, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price) suggested, that to meet the cost of such developments there was a fantastic increase in the rates.
I want to emphasise the point, which was made so well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South that 1s. 6d. of the 2s. 4d. increase was the result of agencies completely outside the control of London County Council. There is the shilling which is a result of the new Rating and Valuation Act, and which also falls on the County of London much more heavily than anywhere else. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Norwich, South resuming his place. He commented on the fact that


other county authorities had not increased their rate as much consequent upon the revaluation. It must be remembered, that the 20 per cent, reduction in the revaluation of shops and business premises bears very much more hardly on London than elsewhere. It has reduced the product of a penny rate by 12 per cent, in London as against 7 per cent, in the rest of the country.

Mr. D. Howell: Will my hon. Friend allow me to put on the record the fact that the revaluation proposal has in respect of the City of Birmingham added Is. 9d. to the rate this year?

Mr. Hay: Only revaluation?

Mr. Skeffington: At all events, it is important to reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South, that 1s. 6d. of this increase was as a result of factors entirely outside the control of the L.C.C. In fact, Is. of it was due to the revaluation of shops and similar property and another 6d. was due to the recent Burnham award and other increases in costs. Now 1s. 6d. out of 2s. 4d. is a considerable sum, so the wild suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, West that this was a fantastic increase, shows how little he has addressed his mind to how the increase is made up.
The Instruction is divided into two parts. These have been dealt with adequately by previous speakers and I only wish to make a few points about them. First, in relation to the use of revenue for capital account, it must be realised that this is nothing novel. It must have been done by many authorities, certainly by the L.C.C, for a long time. If anyone can recall the dim and distant days when there was a Conservative majority in County Hall, they will find that the contribution made from revenue to capital expenditure was at a higher rate than is that proposed in the current year.
In the last year of Conservative control, in 1933–1934, the total net debt was £80 million and the majority party at that time devoted £3¼ million for meeting capital expenditure from revenue. Having regard to the figure today, it is clear that what is proposed now is a much smaller proportion than was the case then.

Mr. Hay: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether in any of those dim and distant days the amount of capital expenditure directly financed from the rate was increased by five times in one year, in a year when the ratepayers were least able to bear it, because that is what is happening this year?

Mr. Skeffington: What I am telling the hon. Gentleman, and meeting the point that he made originally, was that the proportion derived from revenue in those days, when it was very much easier to borrow money than it is today, and when rates of interest were much lower, was much greater than it is today. We are now faced with a debt which is three times that which faced the council in 1933–1934, and altogether, including the £2 million referred to in the Instruction, only £4½ million will be devoted to meet capital expenditure or repaying debt.
Surely it is the duty of any local authority, includng the L.C.C, to adopt a policy which is not only sound but also economical, and the very high interest rates—for which the Government must take responsibility because of their deliberate policy, quite apart from any other economic considerations—-mean that there is great inducement for any local authority, if it can, to finance capital development from revenue.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite so often pose as the champions of economy, of sound financial management, but in the unlikely event of the Instruction being carried tonight, the people of London would pay over sixty years £6 million in interest to get £2 million with which to get on with their works. That is a fact—£100,000 a year at least in interest, for sixty years. If anyone suggests that is a good bargain for London, I think that he should consult a mental specialist.

Mr. Hay: We are not suggesting that this £2 million should not be borrowed. We simply say that instead of putting the burden on the backs of the ratepayers, the County Council should use the money that it has in its own reserves. I should have thought that was the simplest thing in the world to understand. It does not require the quoting of any astronomical figures in interest charges.

Mr. Skeffington: There are only two ways in which this could be done. I


am coming to the second part of the Instruction because the two parts hang together. Either we shall take sums from the working balances which would endanger the financial integrity of the County Council—and I shall advance arguments to prove that in a moment— or, alternatively, work like the duplication of Blackwall Tunnel and the widening of the Strand could not be proceeded with. We should not be able to carry out schemes for housing of old people or for the provision of new facilities for education. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite now realise that they are in a dilemma. Either we should have to cut out some projects which we consider absolutely necessary, or pay high rates of interest, which in the long run —indeed in the short run too—would not be to the benefit of Londoners.
I wish to examine the second part of the Instruction, and to deal with the working balances. We find there that only £2½ million are being set aside as a working balance: and that is supposed to be a very large sum. But judged on any accounting test it is a very moderate sum indeed. It is equivalent to two weeks' expenditure of the Council. There are few prudently managed businesses which would not wish to have at least the equivalent of a fortnight's expenditure in the "kitty" to meet financial liabilities. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should realise that.
For example, rates do not become payable until 15th May. It is the practice of many people not to pay their rates until the last possible moment. Indeed, some hon. Gentlemen opposite may be familiar with the little red notice which eventually is sent to people who have not paid their rates. But the London County Council has to pay its contractors and its servants, teachers and everyone else "on the nail." It is expected to do so. Therefore, to suggest that this balance—a fourteen days' expenditure— is a fantastic sum seems to me to be a misplaced argument.

Mr. H. A. Price: If the argument of the hon. Gentleman is sound, can he explain why it is that last year, when the estimated balance at the end of the year was £2,100,000, the County Council devoted £2,730,000 to the relief of rates,

whereas this year when the estimated balance is £2½ million, it devotes only £711,000?

Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Member will receive an answer to his question, because I am proposing to deal with the changes during the course of my speech.
First, I was dealing with the suggestion that this financial liquidity was fantastic. I suggest that there are few businesses which would wish to be in the position of not having in hand the equivalent of a fortnight's expenditure. Prices are rising all the time, and that has nothing to do with the County Council. Prices have continued to rise, despite what hon. Gentlemen opposite said at the last General Election and previous Elections, and this year, as in previous years, when making the estimates, about £1 million has been allowed for to take account of rising prices and wages and materials. If that amount is exceeded—on the total volume of the council's expenditure and having regard to what has happened in the past it may well be exceeded—these balances are necessary to meet the higher prices. Otherwise the council would not be in a position to meet its financial Obligations. In the past year the working balance was in fact, too small.
On the point about using revenue for certain capital development, there is no other sound and economic policy for the L.C.C., having regard to the high interest rates. Secondly, the working balances are extremely modest. Reference has been made to the district auditor. He made a comment in the year 1944–45 when the balances, as a proportion of the Council's total finances, were higher than they are today, and said that they were "strictly moderate." I am afraid that the house must come to the conclusion that the case for the Instruction has not been made out.
I hope that the Minister will advise his hon. Friends to withdraw the Instruction because the facts of the case have not been made out, and because to interfere in the domestic and financial concerns of a local authority is a very dangerous precedent; and, finally, because Conservatives, who have lost no fewer than six London County Council elections, are now at last trying to get their own back in the House of Commons. It would be a very sorry day for the Government and for the House if the Instruction were carried.

Mr. Price: Is the hon. Gentleman going to deal with the point that I put to him? He said that he would.

Mr. Skeffington: I dealt with it earlier.

9.12 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I do not want to get into a controversy, but I do not remember losing the London County Council election of 1949, despite what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) said.

Mr. Gibson: The right hon. Gentleman did not win it.

Mr. Brooke: I have been listening attentively to the debate for the last two hours and ten minutes and I seem to have been dreaming that I have heard some of these arguments and counterarguments before. Indeed, in my dream I thought that I had at one time been uttering some of them myself. In dreams things are not always just what they are in real life.
In my dream it seemed to me that we were debating among red upholstery and not green—and not in another place in the Westminster sense, because in my dream the Chamber was of a circular and not an oblong character. I must confess to the House that these are matters of discussion and dispute on which, in my previous life, I have expressed views, and possibly militant views, on the other side of the water, as has the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison).
This evening I am going to be meticulous in saying nothing whatever about the merits of these arguments and counter-arguments which have been bandied about the Chamber. It is true that this evening the House of Commons has had a view of some of the personal pleasantries which arise in debate in the London County Council.
I certainly could not uphold the view that it is wrong for Parliament to have a debate such as this. It seems wholly in order, as, indeed, you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled, that when an important Bill such as the London County Council (Money) Bill comes before Parliament there should be scope for wide debate. It might be contended that the L.C.C. Bills, both money and general powers, are of

such a magnitude that Parliament ought not lightly to let them go without debate, whichever party is in power.
Having said that, I want to make it perfectly clear that as Minister of Housing and Local Government I believe that it would be wholly wrong for me to declare myself about the rights or wrongs of the conduct of the L.C.C.'s finances, in the context of this debate. In my Departmental work from time to time I may have to reach judgments about these matters, but I hope that I shall have the assent of both sides of the House when I say that in a controversial and political debate like this the Minister should not, as it were, take sides between the parties, but should rather seek to guide Parliament to the ultimate decision which it should reach.
Let me say here and now that I could not on anything known to me at present comply with the request of my hon. Friends to set up a committee of inquiry into London County Council finances unless, of course, at some future date the district auditor should—I speak hypo-thetically—disclose such a state of affairs that it should be the duty of the Minister of the day to do that.

Mr. Rippon: I should not like the impression to be given that we were suggesting an inquiry into London County Council finances. I was going no further than saying that if there were such an inquiry as was envisaged in the White Paper on local government reform this might lead to an opportunity to remove the anomaly of the money Bill.

Mr. Brooke: The money Bill procedure—if it is an anomaly, and I am not sure that it is—could only be altered by legislation in this House.
When I speak about not setting up any committee of inquiry into London County Council finances I am not to be taken as meaning that all the local government problems of the County of London, or of the County of Middlesex, or of the Greater London conurbation, are settled and need no further thought.
On the contrary, I hope that I shall carry hon. Members on both sides of the House with me in saying that while we are giving attention, as we seek to do, especially to the questions of organisation and functions of local government


throughout the country, we must not forget that both in the County of London and in the County of Middlesex and, maybe, around them, similar questions arise which require careful thought and study from time to time, because conditions change and economic developments take place and the whole pattern of local government as determined at one point of time may require modification as the years go on.
That is a very different thing from instituting a specific inquiry into the finances of London County Council and nothing I have heard said in this debate has convinced me that it would be right for me to take any action of that kind. I want to see whether I can make as many friends in all parts of the House as possible this evening, because I can imagine that some hon. Members, on both sides, may have been wondering what has been passing through my mind in view of my past—murky or otherwise.
During the course of the debate I had the feeling that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South was not far wrong when he said that one of the troubles about London County Council is that its proceedings are so little reported. If we are agreed about that, I think that that may be part of the explanation of this debate, which has given opportunity for both the critics and the defenders of London County Council to state some, at any rate, of their arguments in a forum which does receive wider public attention than many debates on extremely important London questions in County Hall, in practice, do.

Mr. D. Jones: If that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman about publicity, and if this is the way to get publicity for London County Council, would he raise any objection to towns in the provinces doing precisely the same to get publicity for their authorities?

Mr. Brooke: I was not saying that a debate of this kind should take place annually because of the difficulty to which the right hon. Gentleman called attention, that of there being no London local newspaper. That in itself, is a serious matter. To my mind—to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, too, I think—it has the undesirable result that matters of great public moment can be debated in County Hall by the elected

representatives of the people of London-issues which affect millions of Londoners and may run into tens of millions of pounds—and yet there never is the play of public opinion upon them as there is the play of public opinion upon the matters which we debate in this House, and which are more widely reported in the newspapers. But 1 must not allow myself to stray down that avenue, because it is not the main thought which is in my mind.
I will not be held to say that there has been any misuse of Parliamentary time tonight, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. I am sure that when a matter is in order, as this Instruction has been ruled to be in order by the Chair, Parliament cannot be criticised for exercising its powers and its rights to debate it.
The crux of the matter is: what shall we do at the end? I wish to offer the House the guidance which I believe it is right for the Minister of Housing and Local Government to give. The Instruction would not, as I read it, at all affect the content of the Bill. The Bill would still remain a request to Parliament to permit the London County Council to borrow £48 million. The effect of the Instruction, if it were carried, would be, as I understand, to tell the London County Council that it must either drop the Bill or give an undertaking, in effect, to rescind a decision which it reached on budget day and meet a portion of its expenditure by drawing on its balances instead of imposing upon the ratepayers a rate equivalent to that amount.
The alternative, as I see it, if the Instruction were carried and if no such undertaking were given, would be that the London County Council would lose its opportunity of borrowing £48 million, which would mean that it would have either drastically to reduce its capital programme—my hon. Friends have given an assurance that they do not desire that —or to meet the whole of the £48 million out of revenue, which would certainly have a more disastrous effect on the London ratepayers than anything which the London County Council can have done recently under its own autonomous powers.
I must in all seriousness advise the House that we should be setting a very bad precedent if we were to approve an Instruction of this kind, which would have


the presumed effect of virtually compelling a local authority to rescind a rate decision which it had already made. I believe not only in local government but in local self-government, and it seems to me that one of the cardinal points of local self-government is that moment on budget day when the aldermen and councillors record their votes as to what the level of the rate shall be for the ensuing year.
Do not let us for one moment imagine that Parliament has no power at all to examine how local government is carried on, but let us be careful how we exercise that power. Let us exercise it with a sense of responsibility. If we do use those qualities of parliamentary responsibility which, I believe, are possessed on both sides of the House, I believe that they will lead us this evening to express the wish that this Instruction should not be carried—indeed, to express the wish that it should not go to the vote.

9.25 p.m.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: We have had a very exhaustive debate. I had hoped that we should have been able to finish within the hour but obviously the subject was of great interest to the hon. Members who remained in the House. I should like to say how grateful I am to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister—who sat across the road for so long in close relationship with myself— for what he has just said.
The arguments from this side have been expounded extremely well. We were fortunate in enlisting the services of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) who, for so many years, played so prominent a part in the affairs of the London County Council. After he had finished I really thought that there was not very much more that needed to be said. He analysed the reasons for the budget conclusions to which we came at County Hall, and put the whole case against this Instruction extremely cogently.
The Minister has done something to relieve the minds of those of us who act for the L.C.C. in this House. When this kind of thing occurs, we are concerned, we are anxious. We do not know whether such an Instruction will be pressed to a Division and, if it is, what will be its fate. Many anxious hours of thought are given to the whole subject, not only

by hon. Members but by the officers of the Council. Those officers have to spend time perhaps unnecessarily, and the ratepayers' money may very well be unnecessarily expended by such a thing as this.
What the Minister has said has been helpful in relieving our minds of that anxiety. Again, I dare say that the Minister, pleasant though he has been, could very well have more profitably used the last two-and-a-half hours. We have been reminded in the House only this wek that Ministers are very busy people, and perhaps we might give a thought to avoiding overworking them in future.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon), whom I know very well, I think sincerely believes that the financial policy of the London County Council js misguided. I do not think, however, that he feels that there is anything wrong, or anything corrupt, or anything that needs a ministerial inquiry. I am certain that his disclaimer can be accepted. But his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price) asked for such an inquiry. I made a note to the effect that the Minister himself, when Leader of the Opposition in the London County Council, never asked for such an inquiry. He was satisfied that the financial affairs of the London County Council were conducted on a proper basis.
It is no good the hon. Member for Lewisham, West pretending that he is not insinuating that there is something corrupt and wrong in the conduct of the financial affairs of the London County Council. These miserable insinuations are, after all, only the forerunners to the campaign connected with the L.C.C. elections which will take place next year, and are largely inspired by the London Municipal Society. There is no real basis for these accusations against the financial integrity of the L.C.C.

Mr. Hay: The hon. Lady keeps on saying that people have made accusations against the financial integrity of the London County Council. She spoke a moment ago about allegations of corruption. Nobody on this side of the House has used that expression. All that my hon. Friends and I have said is that the London County Council manages its financial affairs very badly. We do not say it is corrupt or improper. We just say that it is a very bad manager.

Mrs. Corbet: I used the word "corruption" because we were told that the L.C.C.'s affairs were managed badly.

Mr. Hay: Very badly.

Mrs. Corbet: What is meant by "badly"? Does it mean that we are spending money that we ought not to spend?

Mr. Hay: Yes.

Mrs. Corbet: Does it mean that we are providing services that we ought not to provide, and that we are being extravagant instead of being reasonably economical?

Mr. Hay: Yes.

Mrs. Corbet: I deny such charges. Every consideration is paid by the London County Council to economy. That is one of the cardinal principles by which we act.
I admit that there may be matters on which hon. Members opposite may not be prepared to spend money because of their attitude to the social problems of the times. That is, of course, a difference of policy. That is the reason the electors of London go to the polls to elect one party or another. When hon. Members opposite belong to a party which does not succeed at the polls, surely they should be prepared to accept the implications involved in carrying out the policy of the party which does succeed.
Are we to have debates such as this every year? Is the L.C.C. to be threatened every year with this sort of thing, with a repetition of the work, anxiety and cost involved in connection with these matters of policy which ought to have been decided at the hustings —

Mr. H. A. Price: Would the hon. Lady be prepared to apply such a doctrine to this Chamber? In other words, the election being over, does she say that we should not discuss these matters any more? Are the Opposition not to be criticised any more until the next election?

Mrs. Corbet: I do not think that that question needs an answer. In all sincerity, I deprecate the course that has been taken here tonight. I hope that it will not be repeated. I agree that the attitude adopted by the party opposite has been adopted over the years. But there is a

simpler explanation of the working balances, and I hope it will be accepted by hon. Members opposite.
There has been some difficulty in years gone by about the accumulation of balances the size of which the majority party in the L.C.C. could not always be sure about. For instance, in the early days after the war, Civil Defence suddenly had to be discontinued, but provision was made for it. Evacuation had to be discontinued, and provision was made for that. There were years of very grave shortage. Nevertheless, it was always hoped that it would be possible to get the supplies, the books and apparatus that we wanted for our schools. Year by year, provision was made, but very frequently the items did not materialise, and it was not possible to spend the money.
All kinds of things like that have occurred, and such difficulties are occurring today. We do not know what salaries we shall have to pay during the coming year. We do not know what rise there will be in prices. We just have to make a much more extensive and lavish provision than we would have done in the days when prices were stable. Everybody should bear that in mind.
Many of our difficulties today are caused by inflation and by the constant rise in prices. The increase in expenditure of the London County Council year by year is very simply explained. If hon. Members will only remember that half our expenditure is accounted for by education, and the fact that we are still dealing with the rising numbers of children in our schools, they will realise that our expenditure must, therefore, automatically rise. We need not then make such bogeys about these things, but should understand one another better, and attack those points which are fairly open to attack and not those which cannot fairly be attacked.
One point that I wish to make is on the provision which the Council has made this year for capital expenditure to be met out of the rates. I had myself been hoping that the Council would be able to make such provision on such a scale ever since the war, but, unfortunately, we have not found it possible to do it, and this seems to have been the first opportunity that we have utilised. It was not, in a way, a very good year, because last year we were able to have a very substantial reduction of rates


owing to revaluation. It was unfortunate, of course, that the provision with regard to commercial derating did not take place last year. The Government could have foreseen that, and could have helped us in that way, but it did not take place. Therefore, we had a substantial reduction last year, and, of course, this year every authority has been bound to increase its rates.
In welcoming this provision that we have made this year, I regret that it has been so late, but I suggest that it is essentially a sound financial provision for an authority to make. This is confirmed by the advice which, I understand, has been given to the nationalised industries. My information is that the Minister of Power, on the advice of the Treasury, has already advised the nationalised industries to meet more capital expenditure out of income.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but on an Instruction the debate must be limited to the subject-matter of the Instruction. I think that the hon. Lady is going a little wide. If I may suggest it, I think that the matter might be brought to a conclusion in time to enable us to hear the remainder of the speech of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), if such a course was agreeable to the hon. Lady and to the House.

Mrs. Corbet: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I should, therefore, like to conclude my speech by saying that I hope that supporters of the Instruction will be kind enough to follow the advice given by the Minister.

Mr. Rippon: The House will agree that the debate has served the purpose which the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) intimated it might serve—to afford an opportunity to discuss this Bill, and to make it clear that its presentation was not a mere formality. In view of the discussion which we have had, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLY

Postponed Proceeding on Question, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, resumed.

Question again proposed.

UNIVERSITIES (INQUIRY)

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I am indebted to you, Mr. Speaker, for the fatherly eye which you have cast on the progress of my speech. I was, about two and a half hours ago, endeavouring to direct the attention of the House to the universities. There was, many years ago, a learned doctor of a Spanish University who, while delivering a lecture, was arrested by his Government, which had little regard for academic freedom, and put in prison for five years. On his release, he returned to the lecture room, was greeted by his loving students, and resumed with the immortal words, "As I was saying the other day". I have but a moderate measure of his feelings at that time as I resume my speech, after two and a half hours' discussion of the affairs of London.
The point that I was making was that while we must always approach the subject of the universities with great care and respect because of the strong, century-old, tradition in this country that universities must be free from Government interference, and while universities are free from Government domination, they ought none the less to be, and, indeed, they are, responsive to the needs of the community. Indeed, it was after the eighteenth century, when Governments and political parties had given up the attempt to dominate universities for political ends, that the university system in this country began to grow and show increased variety in response to the needs of a community which was rapidly becoming industrialised and whose commerce was spread all over the world.
Most of the great provincial universities owe their existence to the events of that time, and the subjects to which they often devoted special study were those the need for which had been created by the Industrial Revolution and the spread of Britain's commerce. We may


without any disregard for academic freedom, assert the principle that, while universities must be free of Government domination, they will want to show, and will show, a regard for the changing needs of the community.
The community, accordingly, has the right and duty from time to time to ask itself how far universities are performing the function of meeting its varied needs. An examination of that kind cannot be carried out casually or frivolously. Universities could not be expected to give great weight to mere expressions of opinions by Governments, nor indeed, even to expressions of opinion in Parliament. To carry weight with universities, we shall need a body of well-informed opinion to which the universities can show respect without derogation from their own dignity. For that reason, I suggest that it would be desirable at this time to initiate an inquiry into matters concerning the universities.
I do not wish to be dogmatic, but I believe that the best form that such an inquiry could take would be a Royal Commission on which would be sitting men and women, some with experience of the academic world and some with experience of the world outside, chosen for outstanding ability, so that at the end of their deliberations the universities would be faced with a careful and informed judgment to which they could, without loss of dignity, pay due attention.
Why do I suggest that, at this time, it would be desirable to hold such an inquiry? In the last generation or more, certain changes have come over the relationship between university and country, and there are today certain facts which are of pressing importance. In the first place, there is the need for an increased number of university graduates, which is not now, I believe, disputed anywhere. When that subject is mentioned, chief place is usually given to the need for an increased number of graduates in mathematics and in natural sciences.
It is, however, important to notice that the need for more graduates does not stop there. There is need for an increased number of graduates who can take part not only in work that requires knowledge of the natural sciences, but in administration, Tin commerce, and in almost every

branch of human knowledge. We are becoming a more sophisticated, more complex community and we require a greater number of highly-trained people.
Secondly, the link between universities and public funds is much greater than it has been in previous generations. The number of students who are able to go to universities because a public authority makes them a grant has been steadily increasing throughout this century and is now very considerable. While we want to preserve the academic freedom of universities, we have to accept the fact that their relation to public bodies is quite different in this respect from what it was a generation or two ago.
Further, the universities have now acquired a very great influence over the whole educational process. To maintain good standards in our secondary schools, we have a recognised system of examinations. It is, in effect, the universities which set those examinations. In that way, they are made the guide and guardian of learning throughout the country. That gives the community, again, a special right to be interested in the way in which universities set about their work.
There is, further, a question, not so easy to define, but perhaps of greatest importance among all those I have mentioned. I believe the time has now come when we should ask afresh the philosophical question: what is the real purpose of a university? In the heat and pressure of modern life, there has been a great tendency to stress the vocational function of a university, to say that we must have universities and more students in them to provide so many scientists, so many teachers, and so many people who have acquired particular skills needed in a particular vocation. No doubt it is part of the duty of a university to meet that vocational need, but it has been believed in the past that it is also the duty of a university to hand on to the next generation certain standards of values and beliefs on which our civilisation rests.
Is it possible today for our universities, burdened as they are with vocational work, to do that job? How many of them, indeed, could say exactly how they define that public duty, what they regard as our cultural heritage, and in what ways they endeavour to transmit it?
I put, then, those four reasons why I think the present time is one in which it would be proper to hold an inquiry into the universities. Those four points which I have mentioned will all be points of lasting importance. We shall continue to want more graduates and have a close connection between our universities and schools and public funds for a long time ahead. They are, also, all questions which are either new or present themselves in an entirely new form since the date when there was last any full-scale inquiry into universities.
Having said that, I should now like to put to the House what I think are some of the questions with which a Royal Commission might concern itself. It would be a great impertinence for me to try to suggest what the answers to such questions might be, for the whole burden of my argument is that there are certain important questions in which the university student, the university don, the professor, and the community as a whole, are now vitally interested. lit is of concern to all of them to try to find the right answers.
Perhaps the first task is to try to define what those questions are. It seemed to me, when I thought over this matter, that if I could not make an exhaustive list of the questions to which such a Royal Commission might address itself, I could at least make a useful beginning to such a list. I would suggest then that these are some of the questions to which such a Royal Commission might address itself.
In the first place, can we form any estimate as to what proportion of our population ought to become university graduates? There are two opposite poles from which we may seek an answer to that question. We may look at the needs of teaching, industry, commerce, the professions, and say that to meet them properly we need so many graduates, or we can say that such evidence as we have from schools and elsewhere suggests that there is a certain proportion of the population who could benefit from a university education.
One could not be dogmatic on either of those points. It would be no use trying to increase the number of graduates merely by entering people at universities irrespective of what their quality is, but I think there is very little doubt that

there are plenty of people in the country who are not going to universities who could benefit by the instruction and the life that they would get if they were there and who could help to meet the shortage of graduates at the present time, but it would be useful if we were a little nearer a judgment of the probable approximate proportion of our population who ought to be university graduates.
We should, I think, certainly find, whatever the answer to that question, that at least we ought to have more of our population attending universities than are now doing so. Consequently it would be important—and this would be my second question— to ask, how can we remove from the path of anybody who ought to be in a university any obstacles that stand in his way? The obstacles that stand in the way at the moment, the two major ones, are finance and sex.
We ought to ask ourselves, on the question of finance, and in order to get the best results and make sure that no fit person is debarred on financial grounds from entering a university, would it be best if the grants were paid, as now, mainly from local funds or entirely from national funds? What ought to be the principles on which it is decided who can have a grant to go to a university? Ought we to leave the matter, as we do now, to each local authority to make its decision, or ought the mere decision of a university that somebody is fit to go there entitle him to a grant?
There is no need to give hurried answers to those questions, but they will require examination. We must also ask what is the proper amount of grant. My own feeling is that every student ought to expect to live frugally. He ought to realise that he is the lucky one, that at an age when most of his fellow countrymen are beginning to do laborious and sometimes not very interesting work he, although he must work hard, is to have an interesting time, and he ought to be prepared to live frugally, but he ought to have enough on which to live cheerfully, not merely sticking at his books but to be able to have a certain amount of general culture and enjoyment as well.
The other obstacle that I mentioned is sex. It is, I think, quite clear that there are many women who ought to be


getting a university education, whose services we shall badly need, and who are not getting it at the moment. We must ask ourselves how that problem can be resolved.
The third of my questions is, can we be sure that the people who go to universities make the best use of their time there? It is a little disquieting to find from the inquiries held by some universities that there is a rather high failure rate—that there is what many people would consider an alarmingly high proportion of students who, starting at a university, either abandon the course or fail to take a degree. It is a little disquieting to observe that even among State scholars the failure rate is higher than what at first glance one would expect it to be. There may be a remedy for that. One cannot expect to know for certain, when a young person is 17 or 18, whether he can make a go of life at the university, and it may be that to get into a university three people who should go there, we must take the risk of sending with them one or two who should not. I think we might ask the universities to ensure that they take enough care of their students' progress when they are there. I think that the failure rate might be less if care were taken in universities, when a student appears to be neglecting his work or falling down on it, to find out why that is so and to repair the damage before it is too late.
Another question that might be asked is, what different kinds of university do we want? It is well known, of course, that Oxford and Cambridge have, and have had for a long time, a great name in education. I might perhaps take the opportunity here of asserting my belief that, of the two, Oxford is the older in time, though that is a university dispute that has long been going on. It is known that State scholars prefer, if they can, to hold their scholarships at these older universities and that a young university lecturer would be glad of an appointment by one of them. What will be the result? Do we want permanently to have two or three universities regarded as better than the rest? It may be desirable—I do not know —to put the most brilliant people in a separate university. It happens casually so far, and we do not know whether it is the best way or not.
Alternatively do we, as some have suggested, want to see Oxford and Cambridge turned into places filled only with post-graduate students? I do not know, but it has been urged by some responsible people that that might be worth examining. At any rate, the question of different kinds of university is a matter of some importance.
The last question, not I fear the last on my list but the last that time will allow me to mention, is, what is the real function of a university? I have referred to the fact that it has an obvious vocational function, and for that reason the universities inevitably, whatever the attitude of any Government, will be subject to a certain amount of outside pressure to determine in what proportion students can go there to study various subjects.
Governments and local authorities can influence that to some extent by the kind of scholarships and grants that they give. Private benefactions can also do that with gifts to the universities to study this and that subject, and will do it, because in the end universities must meet the vocational needs of the community. But we ought to consider what would be the joint effect of private and public actions in determining the proportions of students in different subjects to go to the universities.
Beyond that lies the greater function of the university which I first mentioned. There is something, hard as we find it to define, which we call our civilisation. It is composed of many factors, one of which, at any rate, is the preservation of certain standards of learning and academic integrity. It is the function of the universities to hand on that part of our civilisation. It would be worth asking ourselves whether they are doing it, how they are doing it, and whether they themselves are satisfied that the university is still fulfilling its cultural purpose.
I am indebted to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for listening to me at the end of this varied day. He will appreciate that I could not give him time to reply if I was to say anything worth saying. I am sure that out of his affection for the universities he will give the matter consideration.
If it is not ending on too fanciful a note, I would say that the picture that we ought to have in our minds of the relation between the universities and the rest of


the community is that which we see on the traditional Christmas card, of the shepherds and the Wise Men together at the manger—the workers by hand and by brain, not aloof from and suspicious of one another, but united far the glory of God and the service of mankind.

9.59 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): The whole House will have been interested in the sketch given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) of the recent developments in our universities, and of some of the problems for the future which those developments have thrown up. I do not think that we shall necessarily, because we agree with so much in the analysis, come to the conclusion that at this point of time it might be wise to set up —

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Committee Tomorrow.

UNITED KINGDOM GARRISON, BERMUDA (WITHDRAWAL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: May I, first, express my appreciation, Sir, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of many of our kinsmen overseas in Bermuda, for the opportunity afforded to me tonight to put before this House a question which I believe has considerably more importance and more urgency than might at first sight appear? I am referring to the announcement only a few days ago of the impending removal, unless there is a last minute change of heart on the part of the Government, of our United Kingdom garrison from Bermuda.
It is unfortunate that we cannot view this question simply in isolation, as regards the feelings that have been aroused, and are being aroused, in Bermuda at this time. This flows almost directly from the fact that it is only a few months since the announcement was made that Admiralty House, the base of the C.-in-C. West Atlantic, which has been there constantly since 1830 without a break, has there had the White Ensign

hauled down, and the people of Bermuda at that time already had to suffer the shock of seeing one of their oldest and most familiar institutions removed.
Now we have another stage in the removal of the signs of apparent United Kingdom interest in Bermuda in the announcement of the impending departure of our small garrison there. No one would pretend that the company of 100 men out there now, which represents our present garrison, could have any significant strategic or tactical rôle to play. I do not think there could be any such suggestion on my part, or any need for the Minister to deal with that in his reply but, as we all know, the presence of forces overseas is never limited only to a tactical and strategic rôle. Everyone appreciates that often they have a wider political rôle to play. There are three purposes outside normal purely military ones which are affected by this decision. I refer here to the question of prestige and tradition and to the departing symbols of their ties with this country.
First, as to prestige. It is impossible for a Bermudian to believe, when he sees on all sides very substantial forces and equipment of the United States Air, Navy and Army Forces, that we in this country now cannot afford even 100 men in the loyal Colony of Bermuda, even though it is appreciated that we are obviously a smaller and not such a rich Power as the United States.
It would be much easier if this great contrast between overwhelming military power—its presence felt every hour of the day—was not there to compare unfavourably with this example of our having to withdraw, for announced economic reasons, a force of 100 men. It is difficult to realise how much importance has been attached to their presence in the past by Bermudians. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Keegan), who is himself a Bermudian by descent, will confirm how much importance has been attached to the presence of the United Kingdom force as a tangible link with Britain.
I have sometimes seen their parades. I have seen how crowds—not just tourists, but Bermudians—gather to see the signs of this small but highly efficient and highly trained force. It is only a little while ago that the Prime Minister himself


was welcomed not only by an American guard of honour, but by a British guard of honour when he went to Bermuda. I am in no way casting aspersions on our American allies when I say that every spectator there had no doubt, size apart, which was the better turned out, the better trained and the better looking guard of honour.
That is so far as prestige is concerned and I stress that one cannot overrate it. There does exist at present a contrast between, on the one side, the Power which occupies so large a part of the island in such strength and, on the other, the apparent removal of any active link with this country.
As to the value of tradition, I heard and applauded in this House the other day the reply of the Secretary of State for War when questioned about the small guard which marches up the Embankment to the Bank of England. The Minister was asked whether this guard had any tactical importance—I do not think it could be suggested that it could have any strategic importance—or even whether it served any materially useful purpose. The Minister replied that it was not enough to consider its actual usefulness; that tradition had to play a part, and he said there was every reason why the tradition should continue because it had gone on since 1780.
If there is a reason for continuing a tradition which started in 1780, surely there is a reason for maintaining something which started as did the Bermuda garrison seventy-nine years earlier. It would be a pity if the impression was given to people overseas that we value our traditions in this country, but that we have a different standard of values, a strictly economic standard, when we consider traditions overseas.
Most important of all is the question of symbolism and this, too, is difficult to exaggerate. Unlike many other Colonies, Dependencies and Protectorates there are no real economic ties binding Bermuda to this country. There are mainly ties of sentiment. That is not to say that Bermuda, small as it is, and a very junior member in population of the British Commonwealth of Nations, is not relatively a rich member. It is astonishing that a small country of only 40,000 people, comprising representatives of all

races, should contribute annually about one-tenth of the dollars for the sterling area. Let us thus at once appreciate that the basic ties between Bermuda and this country from her to us are not those of self-interest. They are ties of loyalty and sentiment.
Those ties do not necessarily extend to British Governments. It is a loyalty to Britain as represented by the Crown. The people of Bermuda are intensely loyal and will remain so, but they are loyal to the Crown and not to any particular British Government. Canada, which comprises a large area of the British Commonwealth, although loyal and devoted to our Queen, is not in the sterling area, and Bermuda is a great deal nearer to Canada than to the United Kingdom.
The people of Bermuda have a voluntary restriction on their own dollar expenditure in order to help the sterling area as a whole and hence indirectly this country. Bearing these considerations in mind, can we doubt that in attempting to economise on this very small expenditure, if we are not being penny wise, pound foolish, at least we are being penny wise, dollar foolish?
If it is considered that it is impossible to retain this garrison in Bermuda, and if a decision has not been finally made, may I take the opportunity to advance an alternative suggestion which, perhaps, might be considered before the blow actually falls? It has occurred to me that there might be a case, if the troops have to leave and more cannot be sent to Bermuda from a purely Army source, for a detachment of Marines to go there instead. I would ask the Under-Secretary of State for War seriously to consider this suggestion, for I gather that he is here not merely in his Army capacity but as representing the Ministry of Defence.
My suggestion, while managing to maintain the rôles which I have mentioned earlier of prestige and symbolism, and all the other intangible assets which come from having a definite sign of active British interest in the island, would mean that the Marines were also available as a quickly mobilised force with a tactical rôle for use in the Western or Southern Atlantic if local trouble arose. They could be transported there swiftly for the duties for which Marines are suitable.
It is an odd thing that I should be keeping the House tonight to make a plea for our forces to remain in a part of the world where they are truly wanted. There are many parts of the world which are rejecting us and are asking us to take our troops out, but here is a part of the Commonwealth which says, "Please stay." That is the very part where we are proposing to make a withdrawal of these 100 troops. If the history of the rise and decline of the British Empire be ever written, I cannot help feeling that the future historian will refer to this paradoxical example of the voluntary reduction of our tangible interest in the Empire, as an eminent example of the old classical maxim:
 Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
I would ask the Minister to remember that he will not be replying simply to the hon. Members for Torquay and Nottingham, South, but that his words will be carefully noted and reported overseas. He is, in fact, talking to the Bermudians overseas who will be extremely interested to note what sort of reaction is made to this plea which my hon. Friend and I are making on behalf of a large majority, if not of every one, of the people of that island.
I would close by quoting a letter which I received a few days ago. It came from a leading Bermudian, who is a member of the local Parliament. He is a member of an old Bermudian family and he wrote these words to me and underlined them:
 It will be a terrible shame if the English troops are withdrawn. Perhaps economy demands this, but it will not be without its price. As stated in the House of Commons, it will be very wrong and foolish further to weaken our symbolic ties with you.
I was so impressed with that letter, which I received before the decision was made, that I sent it straight on to the Secretary of State for War. I got a sympathetic reply, from which I quote only the relevant words:
There certainly has not been a negative decision yet"—
this was a few days before the decision was announced—
and I can tell you that the sentiments your correspondent expressed are much in our minds in our present discussions.

It is not for me to know what happened between 30th April and, nevertheless, a negative announcement, but I still plead that second thoughts are quite often the best. If nothing complete and final has been decided, may I ask the Minister to consider the suggestion I have put up, or some other suggestion of that kind, sympathetically, in place of a complete withdrawal which can only cause harm to a valued Commonwealth connection?

10.15 p.m.

Mr. D. M. Keegan: I wish to intervene in this debate for only a few minutes. I must, first, say how very much I appreciate being allowed to take part in it and to express my grateful thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett), who has brought the matter before the House.
I am a Bermudian by descent, my mother's family having lived in that Colony for about 150 years. I spent most of my childhood there and have returned there many times since. My earliest recollection of the United Kingdom garrison there was when I was asked to captain a cricket team to play against it when I was a schoolboy, aged 11. It was the first experience I had had of captaining a cricket team.
The officers of the garrison played left-hand or right-hand in opposition to the way they normally played and they kindly lost the match to the team I had gathered. They invited me to their camp at Warwick to fire the first rounds I ever fired from a rifle and also ten rounds from a Lewis gun. I have never played cricket at Lords, or shot at Bisley, and cannot say that I was taught to play cricket or to shoot by the garrison, but it has played a great part in the life of the Colony.
Bermuda is a great meeting place for Americans and British and that is very much in our minds in this debate tonight. Some very important people have recently visited Bermuda. It would be a very great pity if a Prime Minister were to be greeted in Bermuda only by an American guard of honour when he arrived there, or if a special contingent of British troops had to go out there to perform that ceremonial function. I beg my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of remember that the function of the Army, although primarily to defend us, is nevertheless, to show the


British flag where it ought to be waved, in British Colonies, and it serves a very useful purpose in that respect. I ask him to look very critically at this question of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom garrison.
There is another anecdote that I could tell my hon. Friend about the garrison in Bermuda. I have seen serving members of our force in Bermuda playing rugby against American universities. I think that if we can teach the Americans how to play rugby football there is perhaps a great deal to be said in favour of preserving some remnants of the United Kingdom garrison in Bermuda. I ask my hon. Friend to give every sympathetic consideration to that.

10.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery): I should like at the outset to thank my two hon. Friends who have raised this subject for the way in which they have tackled a very delicate matter. We are very well aware of the long and glorious ties that have linked Bermuda with this country and the British Army. I beg my hon. Friends to believe that what I have to say is said with the strongest sympathy for the sentiments which have inspired their interventions this evening.
I think that it may help to put the problem in perspective if I recall briefly the story of the Bermuda garrison since the war. Until March, 1948, there was a permanent British garrison in the island. It consisted of one infantry company and a headquarters unit, and the total strength was about 250 men. In 1948 the company was withdrawn for service in British Honduras. It was not replaced. Some four years later, in November 1952, it was decided to withdraw the remainder of the garrison, and that withdrawal was completed on 1st May, 1953.
The decision taken at the time to withdraw all Army units from Bermuda was taken on military grounds. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr F. M. Bennett) stressed, there was no operational reason to keep a garrison there. The cost per man was high, and the logical course seemed to be to bring away the troops and send them where they would be needed: but the withdrawal of our troops was deeply regretted

by the Government and people of Bermuda, and their very strong feelings on this point and some of the other more practical and cogent arguments deployed by my hon. Friend were represented to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) at the time of the first Bermuda Conference in December, 1953. As a result of those representations, the Government of the day decided to reverse their earlier decision, and the garrison of one company of the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry, together with headquarters and administrative elements, was accordingly reestablished in Bermuda.
That decision was, I think, perfectly justified in the circumstances of the time, but, as my hon. Friend will be aware, all that was done when we had an Army of more than 400,000 men. Now the background to the 1953 decision has been transformed. The Government have decided to cut the Army's manpower to less than half the 1953 total, and every man in the new Army is to be a volunteer. This revolution in our military structure—it is nothing less than a revolution—imposes correspondingly far-reaching changes in our military organisation.
If we are to sustain our influence as a world Power with less than half the number of men we had under arms in 1953, every man must be in his right place and every commitment which is not essential will have to be cut. If the Army is to build up a central reserve in this country to back up our political influence throughout the world, overseas garrisons will have to be reduced to the minimum consistent with safety. If we are to equip our new model Army with the latest weapons, if we are to provide that Army with living conditions which will attract volunteers, and if, at the same time, we are to keep the economic burdens on this country within bounds, then we shall have to save every penny we can.
These generalisations are the background of thinking against which we have re-examined the decision to restore a garrison in Bermuda. Where has this re-examination led us? On the one side we have the weighty arguments which my hon. Friends have advanced in favour of keeping the garrison. I can assure them that these have been, and continue to be, very much in our minds.
But the arguments the other way have their weight as well. I do not want to stress the manpower or the money aspect overmuch. Two hundred and fifty men may not seem very many, though even 250 is a significant figure when every one is a volunteer. The money involved is not very much either, though in our present circumstances every penny counts. The main point, as I see it, is this: there is no operational justification for keeping a garrison in Bermuda. There is no internal security commitment there. There are already two territorial units in Bermuda—a battery of the Bermuda Militia Artillery and a Headquarters and Rifle Company of the Bermuda Rifles— and a British Army element will remain with them in a training rôle.
Nor is there any question of the withdrawal of the British forces from the West Atlantic area. We have two other battalions there, one British and one of the Jamaica Regiment. They have elements which are, admittedly, not so far north, but they are in Jamaica, British Honduras and Guiana.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that we are living in a time when garrisons are being cut in other parts of the world less sheltered from the cold war and the tensions of rising nationalism than is Bermuda. We have weighed the different arguments for and against withdrawal with great care and sympathy, and we have been forced nevertheless to the conclusion that the Army cannot afford to maintain a garrison in Bermuda. What was possible and, indeed, right for an Army of 400,000 men is not possible, and would be wrong, for the Army envisaged in the White Paper. We have accordingly decided to withdraw the 5th com-

pany of the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry by the end of this month.
I have sought so far to explain the background of the problem, and to give the reasons why the Army has decided— and, I may say, reluctantly decided—to withdraw the Army garrison from Bermuda. We have reached that decision with the utmost reluctance. I say this, not just for the record but because of another suggestion that my hon. Friend made.
He suggested that it might be possible to substitute a garrison of Marines for the Army garrison, and was good enough to give me notice of his intention to raise this point. I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to give him a reply. The representation of the Services in the Western Hemisphere generally is still under consideration as part of the study of our defence policy. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that his proposal will be very carefully studied. My hon. Friends will not, however, expect me to attempt tonight to forecast the results of that study.
Meanwhile, I am sure that, much as the people of Bermuda may regret the withdrawal of the Army garrison, they will recognise that in sacrificing something which they have greatly prized, they will also be making a contribution to strengthening the thing they care most about—the independence and greatness of the Commonwealth and Empire, with which they have had such a long and illustrious connection.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.